1. Shri Jagjiwan Lai has filed this petition under Sec 561-A Cr. P. C. for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by Shri Krishen Chand, respondent herein, in the court of Sub judge Judicial Magistrate, Jammu.

2. Shri Krishen Chand, complainant-respondent in his complaint under Sec. 500 R. P. C. has alleged that she accused-petitioner give an interview to the correspondent of the local daily "Kashmir Times" on or about April 18, 1982 making a false accusation against him that he was trying to plunder the modesty of female teacher Mrs. Indu Bala, which interview was published in the same paper in its issue of April 18, 1985, thereby causing harm to his reputation and personal character. Learned Sub Judge Judicial Magistrate, Jammu after recording the statement of the complainant respondent and Shri Ved Bhasin, editor of "Kashmir Times" issued process against the accused-petitioner under Sec. 500 R. P C. Afterwards, finding the summons not to have been served upon the petitioner, the Court issued bailable warrants for She arrest of the petitioner.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record before me. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court has wrongly held the petitioner not to be a public servant when being a Cabinet Minister, he was a public servant and without obtainining sanction, as required under Sec. J97 Cr. P. C. the complaint was not competent. He has further contended that the trial Court after recording the statement of the complainant insisted for further evidence and statement of Shri Ved Bhasin, editor of Kashmir Times, recorded later on did not make out a prima facie case for issuing process and as such the process issued by the Court is required to be quashed. According to him, because of political rivalry existing in the area, the respondent herein who is a petty Government official, has been made an instrument in dragging the petitioner herein to litigation and defaming him unnecessarily. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on other hand, has pleaded that the petitioner was not at all a public servant as defined in the Ranbir Penal Code and moreover, the accusation leveled by him against the respondent could not be termed to be an act done by him under the colour of his office and under such circumstances, the trial Court was right in issuing process against the petitioner 1 have considered these respective contentions raised by cither side

4. The petitioner is admittedly a Cabinet Minister in the J&K Govt. ˜Public Servant has been defined in Sec 21 R. P. C Clause ninth of this section which is relevant of the facts of the present case, runs as under: "

" Every Officer whose duty it is, as such Office", to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government or to take any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government or to execute any revenue-process, or to investigate or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary, interests of the Government, and every officer in the service or pay of the Government, or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty,"

Such question came up for consideration of this Court in case Bakshi Ghulam Mohamad Versus G. M. Sadiq. AIR 1968 J&K 1998,wherein it was held that the minister of a State was a public servant. Same point was also considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 898 and Chie Minister and minister were held to be public servants with in the meaning of Sec, 21 (£} t f cur Ranbir Penal Cede. In this authority their Lordships have held as under:

" The use of the words other public servants following a Minister of the Union or of a State clearly shows that a Minister would also be a public servant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document