ORDER :- Respondent herein has filed a complaint against the petitioner herein under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from the petitioner, four other persons are arraigned as accused persons. The provisions under which the complaint is filed would clearly suggest that the respondent is aggrieved at certain remarks of the petitioner which, according to the respondent, are defamatory in nature and therefore, the respondent wants the accused persons to be tried under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC. The learned MM, after recording the pre-summoning evidence, took cognizance of the complainant and issued notice to the accused persons.

2. The petitioner was the Leader of Opposition in Bihar Assembly when he had made the alleged offending remarks. He feels that this position affords him the requisite protection under the law and no prosecution can be launched against him without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority under Section 197, Cr. P.C. Therefore, on receipt of the notice the petitioner filed an application under Sections 190/197/199/200 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dismissal of the complaint primarily on the ground that before proceeding against the petitioner, requisite sanction was required, which was not obtained by the respondent herein. This application was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 18-9-2006. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the petitioner preferred criminal revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, which met the same fate as the learned ASJ dismissed the said revision petition on 9-10-2006. Still not satisfied present petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is filed challenging the aforesaid order of the learned MM and ASJ respectively. Therefore, the primary question with which we are concerned in this petition is as to whether prior sanction for instituting proceedings against the petitioner was required or not.

3. Before coming to this core issue, it is necessary to know as to under what circumstances such a plea is taken by the petitioner. To ascertain this, relevant and necessary facts need to be traversed. Therefore, these facts are stated hereinbelow in the first instance.

4. The complainant claims that he is currently the Chairman, Centre for Policy Alternatives, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He is also a former Advisor to the Finance Minister, a post carrying the rank of Secretary to the Government of India. He is qualified economist and policy analyst acknowledged for his competence and integrity in this country and abroad. He has obtained his Masters Degree in Public Administration from Harvard University where he also held prestigious Edward S. Mason Fellowship. He has taught at premier institutes like Harvard and Administrative Staff College of India. He is a columnist, writer and commentator on public affairs. He also states that his writings and opinions are quoted with deference in publications and by experts and he is regarded for the excellence of his work as also for his unimpeachable integrity. The respondent authored a report titled 'Economic Strangulation of Bihar' under the auspices of the Centre for Policy Alternatives as its third report. In this report he purportedly analysed economic assistance to the State of Bihar and pointed out the inequality in this on the basis of some official statistics. At that time, the petitioner was the Leader of Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly. On 18-2-2004, the petitioner called a Press conference at Patna in which he circulated written Press Statement to the several members of the media present at the said Press conference for the purpose of publication. By the said statement he allegedly defamed the respondent by calling him corrupt and asserting that the respondent had been removed from the Government on serious charges of corruption and trying to oblige a business house to the tune of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document