MOHINI KAPUR, J.—In this revision petition, the scope and meaning of some person aggrieved in Section 199 Cr.P.C. is to be examined. The Additional C.J.M., Kota, has taken cognizance, upon a complaint, filed by the non-petitioner one Shri Srinath Soni, who is the President of Instrumentation, Workers Union (Intuc) Kota, for the alleged defamation of the President and the Prime Minister of this Country. An article published in the Hindi version of India Today, dated 28th Feb. 1987, under the heading Khatarnak Takrav is the writing on basis of which the petitioners, who are the Senior Editor, Chief Editor and the Printer of the magazine, are being proceeded against for the offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC.

2. By this order it is not to be decided whether the words written in the article amount to defamation or not, so the contents may be seen in brief only. The President of India is said to be merely a Rubber Stamp and the Prime Minister is said to be an inexperienced person. The strained relation between the President and the Prime Minister is the basis on which the political situation has been discussed.

3. The learned Addl. C J.M. recorded the statement of the complainant Shrinath Soni and one Kuldeep Kapoor under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance against the petitioners. In his opinion the allegations made in the article regarding the relationship of the President and the Prime Minister were baseless and the petitioners had no right to publish such material. The complainant in his statement said that on reading the article, he felt that it was written with the intention of devaluing the status of the President as well as the Prime Minister and that an effort had been made to show that the Constitution of India is meaningless. According to him the whole nation, public, President, Prime Minister and the Constitution had been defamed. The witness Kuldeep Kapoor has deposed that his feelings were hurt after reading the article and he felt that the same was objectionable and defamatory. The question which has not been considered by the learned Addl. C.J.M., while taking cognizance on the complaint of the non-petitioner is whether cognizance for the offence of defamation of the President or the Prime Minister could be taken on basis of a complaint made by Non-petitioner No. 1.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that u/S 199 Cr.P.C, cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, which includes the offence of defamation, can be taken only upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. This according to him, means that, either a person who has been defamed can make a complaint or the complainant has to be a person who can be said to be directly or indirectly affected by the defamation of the other person. The exceptions to this rule have been given under the proviso and some other person can make a complaint in those circumstances with the leave of the Court Secondly, it is contended that under Sec. 199(2) Cr.P.C. the procedure has been given when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the l.P.C. is alleged to have been committed against the President, the Vice President of India the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory or a Minister of the Union etc. and in this it is the Court of Sessions, which can take cognizance of the offence but such a complaint has to be made by the Public Prosecutor with the previous sanction of the State Government or the Central Government. Sub-clause (6) of Section 199 Cr.P.C. preserves the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate. In other words a person, other than a person against whom an offence is alleged to have been committed, can make a complaint when the person defamed is President, Prime Minister etc. and a Court of Sessions can take cognizance, but this complaint has t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document