MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAMASWAMI
V.P.Shanmugam
Versus
Thangavelu
Criminal Revn. Case No. 323 of 1957 (Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 317 of 1957)
Decided On : 13 August, 1957
CRIMINAL LAW - DEFAMATION - ELECTION - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 171-G, I. P. C. - SANCTION OF GOVERNMENT - NOT NECESSARY - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 500, I. P. C. - NO SANCTION NECESSARY.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioners published a notice containing rhetorical questions alleging that the first respondent, a candidate in the Madras Legislative Assembly elections, used to receive money and withdraw from contests. The first respondent filed a complaint for defamation under Section 500, I. P. C. The revision petitioners filed an application for dropping further proceedings on the ground that the complaint would fall under Section 171-G, I. P. C., which requires the sanction of the Government under Section 196, Cr. P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the offence fell under Section 500, I. P. C., and required no previous sanction of the Government. The court dismissed the application.
Issues: Whether the offence fell under Section 171-G, I. P. C., which requires the sanction of the Government under Section 196, Cr. P. C., or under Section 500, I. P. C., which does not require such sanction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offence fell under Section 500, I. P. C., and not under Section 171-G, I. P. C., because the allegations in the notice were not statements of fact but merely rhetorical questions. The court also held that an offence under Section 171-G, I. P. C., requires the sanction of the Government, but an offence under Section 500, I. P. C., does not.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition.
ORDER:- This is a revision which has been preferred against the order made by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollachi, M. P. No. 67 of 1957 in C. C. No. 88 of 1957.
2. The first respondent before us Thangavelu stood for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly in the recent general elections. He was the nominee of the Praja Socialist Party supported by the Communist Party, and was being opposed by a Congress Party candidate. In these circumstances a printed notice was published and circulated by the revision petitioners before us. That notice contained a series of rhetorical questions whether it was true or not that this Thangavelu used to receive money and withdraw from contest in elections.
Beyond these rhetorical questions no particulars are mentioned which would enable this Thangavelu to refute them. In fact this Thangavelu in his evidence as P. W. 1 in the lower court has categorically denied all those allegations and has given adequate explanations for his withdrawals at the end. Thangavelu filed a complaint for an offence under S. 500 I. P. C., against the revision petitioners for statements which are per se defamatory. They then filed an application M. P. No. 67 of 1957 in the lower court for dropping further proceedings on the ground that the complaint would fall under S. 171-G I. P. C. which requires for its maintenance the sanction of the Government under S. 196 Crl. P. C. The learned Magistrate held that the offence would fall under S. 500 I. P. C. and required no previous sanction of the Government and dismissed the application. Hence this revision.
3. In revision I am of the same opinion as the learned Magistrate and here are my reasons.
4. False statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate are penalised by S. 171-G I. P. C. which corresponds to S. 1 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1895 (58 and 59 Vic. Ch. 40). In fact acknowledgment of the same is made in the Statement of Objects and Reasons; See Gazette of the India, Part V, D/-3rd July 1920, Page 135. It is set out in S. 123 (5) of the (Indian) Representation of the People Act, 1951:
"The publication by a candidate or his agent, or by any person with the connivance of the candidate or his agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidates election."
5.This section penalises the publication of a false statement of fact or election lies concerning the personal conduct or character of a candidate. This offence may be committed by any person or association, whether corporate or incorporate. The section does not apply to defamatory statements about persons who are not candidates. (Naravanaswami v. Devaraja AIR 1936 Mad 316 : 1935 Mad WN 1164 (A) ).
6.Two things are essential. It must be a statement of fact find relate to the personal character of a candidate. Secondly, the section would not be contravened where the statement was a statement not of a fact but merely of opinion unless the expression of opinion was sup-ported by instances. Such reference must not be merely inferential.
7.An offence under S. 171-G is net a species of the more general offence of defamation and the section cannot be said to have been carved out of S. 499 I. P. C. There may be cases under S. 171-G of the Code, which do not fall under S. 499 and vice versa. It cannot therefore be insisted that the complainant should proceed against the accused in respect of the offence under 3. 171-G and not under S. 499 (3) I. P. C. Bhagolelall v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Nag 249 : 41 Cri LJ 734 (B).
8.No prosecution can be initiated for an offence under S. 171-G without the sanction of Government as provided in S. 196, Cri. P. C. But it is only when the offence strictl
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.