The sanction for prosecution under Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be granted in accordance with the specific requirements of Sub-sections (3) (b) and (c), and the term "Minister" in the section includes Deputy Minister.

Falshaw, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by Tara Chand, who is the editor, printer and publisher of an Urdu Weekly called Shola published at Ambala Cantt. In the issue dated the 16th of December, 1959, under the heading "Scandal of the American milk powder in Punjab" there appeared an article in which serious imputations were made against Shri Benarsi Das Gupta, Deputy Minister of Food and Supplies in the Punjab Government.

2. In consequence of this, a complaint was filed by the Public Prosecutor, Ambala, in the Court of the Session Judge under Sections 500 and 501, Indian Penal Code, on the 15th of June, 1960. This step was taken under the provisions of Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant provisions of this section read:

"198-B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860) (other than the offence of defamation by spoken words) is alleged to have been committeed against the President or the Vice-President or the Governor of a State or a Minister 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 a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor.

(2) * * *

(3) No complaint under Sub-section (1) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction; (a) in the case of the President or the Vice-President or the Governor of a State, of any Secretary to the Government authorised by him in this behalf;

(b) in the case of a Minister of the Central Government or of the State Government, of the Secretary to the Council of Ministers, if any, or of any Secretary to the Government authorised in this behalf by the Government concerned;

(c) in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, of the Government concerned;

(4) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under Sub-section (1) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed".

3. In the present case, as I have Said, the complaint was instituted by the Public Prosecutor just within the period of limitation prescribed under Sub-section (4) and I now reproduce the sanction under which the complaint was filed. It reads:

"Whereas the Governor of Punjab is satisfied that on the 16th December, 1959, Shri Tara Chand Varma then working as editor, printer and publisher of the Shola, an Urdu Weekly of Ambala Cantt had edited, printed and published in the issue of the Shola, dated 16th December, 1959, a report captioned, "Punjab Men Amriki Dudh Ke Safuf Ka Scandal--Punjab Sarkar Kc Ek Deputy Wazir Ki Karamat--Dinon men Lakh pati Ban Jane Ka Nuskha", containing statements defamatory of Shri Benarsi Das Gupta, Deputy Minister, Punjab, in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions and which he knew or had reasons to believe to be defamatory; And whereas the report mentioned above discloses that the said Shri Tara Chand Verma has committed an offence punishable wider Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code; Now, therefore, as required by Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to sanction the prosecution of the said Shri Tara Chand Verma under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code".

Then follow the signature of Mr. E. N. Mangatrai, Secretary to the Council of Ministers, Punjab, and the date, 11th June, 1960.

4.On the 11th of July, 1960 the learned Sessions Judge passed an order to the effect that he had perused the complaint and that the accused should be summoned for the 27th of July, 1960, by which date the list of the prosecution witnesses was to be filed by the Public Prosecutor.

4. In the present