The Court held that an allegation of defamation against a public functionary is relatable to the conduct of such person in the discharge of his public function if it may be justifiably and reasonably connected or related to the discharge of his public function, even if it is not strictly associated with such acts.

The legality as well as continuation of a criminal proceeding pending before the learned Sessions Judge, (Criminal) (Complaint) Case No.l of 1984-is the subject matter of this proceeding. The facts giving rise to the present proceeding are summed up below.

2. A criminal complaint for defamation in writing was made by the Public Prosecutor with the previous sanction of the State Govt before the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur alleging that the accused/petitioner, the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Manipur Local Daily 'Poknapham' committed offence of defamation against a Minister of the State in respect of his conduct and discharge of his public function. It was alleged that the said Daily 'Poknapham' which had a large circulation within the State of Manipur and is read by a large section of the public, published a news item in its issue on 23rd April, 1984 under the caption "Kanana Hijillibano Mantrina Luhongba Tour Allowance Louba Bor Kanya Animak. Mashak Epha Phajei - Gadha Binod (who says Minister enjoys tour allowance in attending marriage ceremony both bride and bride-groom are good looking -Gadha Binod) in the front page. The news item along with the English translation was appended with the complaint. Pointing out to the said news item it was alleged that the accused made false imputation against Shri Radha Binod Koijam, Minister for Medical Health and Family Welfare, Govt of Manipur using pseudo name as 'Gadha Binod' by stating inter, alia that the Minister conducted himself in a cheap and funny way in the marriage ceremony of Gaya, daughter of Shri and Smti Bhatia with Chanchal. It was further alleged in the news item that the Minister acted as Mandop Mapu (Chief of the ceremony) in the marriage and addressed the gatherings there by saying that the ceremony not only provided him food and eatable over and above his tour allowance and which also provided him an opportunity for him to campaign vote. It also stated that the Minister out of his discretionary fund placed a sum of Rs. 1,000 in cash along with one thousand dhoties, one thousand phanek and one thousand lunguns (sacred thread) and the people in the gathering scrambled to pick up the same. It was also alleged that the said ironical imputation, using the pseudo name as 'Gadha Binod', Minister of Family Welfare was directed against and referable to Shri Radha Binod Koijam, Minister for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Govt of Manipur and none else. It was also alleged that the accused published the same false and unfounded imputations with mala fide intent to harm the reputation of Shri Radha Binod Koijam, Minister for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Manipur. It was alleged that directly or indirectly lowered the reputation and moral character of the Minister, Radha Binod in the estimation of others, thereby constituting the offences punishable under section 500/501 of the IPC.

3. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the complaint and registered a case under section 500/501 of the IPC against the accused. The accused appeared and released on bail.

4. The accused presented an application before the learned Sessions Judge for his discharge under section 245 (2) read with section 237 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and questioned the legality and validity of the continuance c of .the said proceeding. Before the learned Sessions Judge objection was taken on behalf of the accused/petitioner for adopting the summons procedure instead of a warrant proceeding. The learned Sessions Judge conceded that instead of passing any order for examination of prosecution witness inadvertently he passed the order for explanation. The learned Sessions Judge agreed to adopt warrant procedure. In paragraph 2 of the application of the accused for discharge it was contended that the allegation contained in the complaint petition did not disclose the offence of defamation, but learned counsel for the accused petitioner did not press the same at the time of arg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document