A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Counsel, Mr. N. Adhikari, learned Advocate General, Tripura, Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel on behalf of the respective parties.

2. These criminal revision petitions, arising out of the same set of facts, which raise similar questions of law and facts, have been taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order.

3. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 04 of 2010, the accused/Petitioner, Sri Subal Kr. Dey, prays for his acquittal from the charges under Section 500/501 IPC, by quashing the order dated 18.01.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, in complaint case C.R. No. 03 of 2005, titled, 'Public Prosecutor v. Ratan Lai Nath and Subal Kumar Dey' (accused).

In Criminal Revision Petition No. 05 of 2010, the accused/Petitioners Smti. Paramita Livingstone and Sri Pradip Datta Bhowmik, seek quashing ofthe order dated 18.01.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura, in complamt case C.R. No. 01 of 2005, titled. 'Public Prosecutor v. Ratan Lai Nath, Smt. Paramita Livingstone and Pradip Datta Bhowmik (accused), and pray for acquittal of the accused Petitioners from the offence under Section 500/500 IPC.

Further, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2010, the complainant/Petitioner i.e. the Public Prosecutor, Tripura, seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 02.01.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, were by proceeding against accused Sri Ratan Lai Nath has been dropped.

4. Facts, leading to the filing of these criminal revision petitions, may be stated briefly, as follows:

The Public Prosecutor, West Tripura, Agartala filed two complaint cases as aforenoted i.e. C.R. 01 of 2005 and C.R. 03 of 2005, on the basis of two separate sanction orders accorded by the Governor of Tripura, under the provision of Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging commission of offence under Section 500/501of the Indian Penal Code against the accused above named for making false imputation and for printing and publishing the defamatory news item in the local news papers against the Minister in-charge of Finance Department, Government of Tripura, Sri Badal Choudhury.

5. After examination of the witnesses of the complainant, the learned trial Court cognizance of the offence and, accordingly, issued process against the Respondents for their appearance. On appearance of the Respondents in the Court, the evidence of the witnesses before charge was recorded by the learned trial Court. On the basis of the materials available on record, finding sufficient grounds to proceed ahead with the trial against the accused, the learned trial Court framed formal charge against all the accused under the aforesaid Sections of law in both the complaint cases separately.

6. When the criminal trial was at the stage of recording prosecution witnesses, after framing of the charge, an application was filed by Sri Ratan Lai Nath, accused in CR No. 03 of 2005, before learned trial Court, praying for dropping the complaint proceeding against him on the plea that a charge has already been framed against him for alleged commission of offence of making defamatory statement against Sri Badal Choudhury, Finance Minister of Tripura, in complaint Case CR No. 01 of 2005, on the ground that it offends Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

7. The learned Court on the prayer so made by the accused passed the following orders:

Since the case C.R. 01/05 is pending in this Court, the case has been called on the same sitting and on careful perusal of the charge brought against the accused Ratan Lai Nath is found to be similar to that of the charge framed in C.R. 03/05. Since the fundamental rule of law is being pleaded by the defenc