Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Collector of Customs, (Appeals)
Versus
Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Limited
Crl. R.C. No. 162 of 1995
Decided On : 26-04-1996
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 197 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - PUBLIC SERVANT - ACT DONE IN DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY - PRESS PUBLICATION BY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - NECESSITY OF SANCTION - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - DECISION AT EARLIEST STAGE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Collector of Customs, was accused of defamation under Section 500 IPC for releasing a press statement alleging evasion of excise duty by the complainant company. The Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application to recall the summons and drop the proceedings, holding that the question of sanction could be considered only during the trial. The petitioner challenged this order in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Magistrate erred in deferring the consideration of the necessity of sanction to the post-trial stage. The Court found that the act of press publication by the Collector was directly or reasonably connected with his official duty, and thus required sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC. The Court also held that the Magistrate should have considered the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner at the earliest stage, and that the order dismissing the application was illegal and void.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in deferring the consideration of the necessity of sanction to the post-trial stage? 2. Whether the act of press publication by the Collector was directly or reasonably connected with his official duty, and thus required sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC? 3. Whether the Magistrate should have considered the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner at the earliest stage?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Magistrate erred in deferring the consideration of the necessity of sanction to the post-trial stage, as this was a jurisdictional issue that should have been decided at the earliest stage. The Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions which held that the question of sanction could be decided at any stage of the proceedings, and that it was not necessary to wait until the evidence was taken. 2. The Court found that the act of press publication by the Collector was directly or reasonably connected with his official duty, as it was intended to inform the public about the effective functioning of the Customs department and to prevent the commission of evasion of excise duty. The Court relied on notifications issued by the department which permitted the Collector to make press publications in such cases. 3. The Court held that the Magistrate should have considered the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner at the earliest stage, as it was a jurisdictional issue that went to the root of the question of whether the Magistrate had the authority to entertain the complaint. The Court relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court which held that a Magistrate should not dismiss a preliminary objection without considering it, especially when the contents of the complaint disclosed that the act of the accused was done while he was a public servant.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Magistrate, and quashed the entire proceedings against the petitioner under Section 500 IPC.
The petitioner Dr. G.K. Pillai, Collector of Customs, the accused in C.C. No. 8499 of 1994, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has preferred this revision, against the order of dismissal, dated 24-2-1995 on his petition to drop the proceedings and to recall the summons issued in the above case by the Magistrate.
2.The facts leading to the present revision need narration :-
The complaint, Renowned Auto Products Manufacturers Ltd., has its factory premises at No. 122, SIPCOT, Industrial Estate, Hosur. The complainant is dealing in the business of production and manufacture of shock absorbers and automobile spares.
3.The petitioner/accused, through his subordinate officers conducted a raid in the factory premises of the complainant on 17-5-1994 and 19-5-1994. On the basis of the materials collected from the premises during the raid, the Managing Director of the Complaint/company was interrogated. After perusal of the records, books of account, the complaint/company was asked to pay anad hocamount of Rs. 25 lakhs, towards the evasion of excise duty. But the Managing Director, who appeared before the department pleaded that the company had not evaded any payment of excise duty, and as such no amount could be paid. Then, the Managing Director of the company was arrested and sent for remand to the Court.
4.On 31-8-1994, the petitioner/accused, Customs Collector convened a press conference at his office and released a news items, containing the defamatory allegation and damaging the reputation of the complainants company, which was published in the daily newspapers. The publication made in the newspaper is as follows :-
"Mr. Ranjit Pradap, Managing Director of Renowned Auto Products Manufacturers Ltd. had been arrested in the morning for evading Central Excise Duty of around Rs. 20 lakhs. The Company engaged in the manufacture of shock absorbers had manipulated invoices and credit notes and evaded excise." *
5.Since the above press publication was released by the accused to the reporters, the complainant Renowned Auto Products Manufacturers Ltd., through its General Manager Mr. T.N. Panchapakesan, filed a complaint on 29-11-1994, before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras for an offence under Section 500 I.P.C., against the accused. On the complaint taken on file in C.C.No. 8499 of 1994, by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, process was issued to the petitioner/accused.
6.On service of summons the petitioner entered appearance before the trial Court and filed a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 189 of 1995 under Section 204 Cr. P.C., to recall the summons issued on various grounds. One of the main grounds urged in that petition was that the petitioner/accused being a public servant cannot be proceeded with for an offence under Section 500 I.P.C., in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C.
7.This application was objected by the complainant by filing a counter, stating that the act complained of, cannot even be considered as one inseparable connected with the duties of the accused and so the sanction was not necessary.
8.After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the petition, counter, complaint and other materials, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 24-2-1995, dismissing the petition, filed by the accused, holding that the question as to whether, sanction was necessary or whether the act was done in relation to discharge of the official duty can be looked into only at the time of trial. This order is now being challenged in this Court by the petitioner/ accused.
9.Mr. Prakash, representing Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, though raised several points, mainly contended that the point of sanction has got to be considered, at the initial stage itself and that the Supreme Court has held that the order issuing the process being an interim order can be varied or recalled by the Magistrate himself, if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclos
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
