Computation of time for filing complaint of defamation.

This is a petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 19 of 1979 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madras.

2. An interesting question arises in this petition as to whether Section 199(5) Cr.P.C., which lays down that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence of defamation against the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory, or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant, unless the complaint by the Public Prosecutor is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, is governed by Section 470 Cr.P.C. which provides for exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation in certain cases.

3. The City Public Prosecutor has filed the above prosecution against the petitioner herein, who is the Editor and Publisher of the Tamil Weekly 'Ina Murasu' for publication in his weekly dated 23-9-1978 of some defamatory news against Thiru Ponn Paramaguru, the then Commissioner of Police, Madras. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 23-9-1978 when the publication was made; but the complaint has been filed by the Public Prosecutor on 25-6-1979, after more than six months from the date of the offence. It is contended by the Advocate General appearing for the respondent that an application for sanction was made to the Government on 30-9-1978 and the Government accorded sanction only on 15-3-1979, and when this period is excluded, the complaint is in time. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 470 Cr.P.C. which provides for the exclusion of time in certain cases in computing the period of limitation, has no application to prosecution laid by the Public Prosecutor for the offence of defamation against the President of India and the other authorities mentioned in Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. and the failure to institute the complaint within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, is a total bar to the prosecution. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of the Andhra High Court in Smt. Rekha Varma v. Public Prosecutor, 1982 Mad LJ (Cri) 159 where it has been held that S. 473 Cr.P.C. providing for extension of period of limitation in certain cases has no application in such a case where a complaint is laid for defamation by the Public Prosecutor under S. 199(2) Cr.P.C.

4. Chapter XIV Cr.P.C. which consists of Sections 190 to 199 deals with 'conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings'. S. 193 in the said Chapter lays down that except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code S. 199, which deals with prosecution for defamation, lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of defamation except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. But exception to these two provisions of law is made in Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. whereby when any offence of defamation is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union Territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, the public Prosecutor may make a complaint in writing before a Court of Session as a Court of original jurisdiction. To this enabling provision, two conditions are annexed viz.

(1) The complaint by the Public Prosecutor must be with the previous sanction of the State Government or the Central Government, as the ca