IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Billal Miah Son of Maharam Ali - Petitioners
Versus
The Public Prosecutor - Respondents
CRL.A. No.20 of 2013
Decided On : 03-01-2019
The court held that the sanction order issued by the Legal Remembrancer & the Secretary Law Department was invalid as it contravened the requirement of Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The sanction order was not issued by a person having competence to issue the sanction order. The court further held that the prosecution failed to prove that a valid sanction had been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction had been made out.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a member of the Tripura Legislative Assembly, was convicted under Section 500 of the IPC for defaming the Chief Minister. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the sanction order issued by the Legal Remembrancer & the Secretary Law Department was invalid as it contravened the requirement of Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sanction order issued by the Legal Remembrancer & the Secretary Law Department was invalid as it contravened the requirement of Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The sanction order was not issued by a person having competence to issue the sanction order. The court further held that the prosecution failed to prove that a valid sanction had been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction had been made out.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction order issued by the Legal Remembrancer & the Secretary Law Department was valid. 2. Whether the prosecution proved that a valid sanction had been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction had been made out.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sanction order issued by the Legal Remembrancer & the Secretary Law Department was invalid as it contravened the requirement of Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The sanction order was not issued by a person having competence to issue the sanction order. The court further held that the prosecution failed to prove that a valid sanction had been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction had been made out. The court relied on the following principles: 1. All executive actions of the government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. 2. Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of Governor shall be authenticated in such a manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor. 3. The validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. 4. It is obligatory for the prosecution to prove that valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
1. This is an appeal by the convict, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2004 delivered in case No. CR.01 of 2000 by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Initially, the appellant filed the revision petition against the said judgment but later, on his application being Crl.Misc.App.134 of 2013, the said revision petition being Crl. Rev. P. No.81 of 2004 was covered to a criminal appeal by the order dated 08.07.2013. By the said impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted under Sections 500 of the IPC for defaming the defacto complainant [PW-4]. Pursuant to the said conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer 2[two] day’s simple imprisonment.
2. One complaint was filed against the appellant under Section 199(2) of the Cr.P.C. by the Public Prosecutor, West Tripura, Agartala [PW-1] for taking cognizance, inquiry and trial against the appellant for committing the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.
The crux of the complaint is that the appellant who was a member of Tripura Legislative Assembly [MLA] made ‘scathing and unfounded allegations in a public meeting held on 04.06.2000 to defame the Chief Minister’ [PW-4]. The said statements published in a daily newspaper, namely Tripura Darpan on 05.06.2000. For purpose of reference, the news that has been published in the said newspaper and as translated by the complainant and reproduced in the complaint is extracted hereunder:
“Staff correspondent, Agratala, 4th June : Manik Sarkar, the Chief Minister of the so-call poor-friendly left front Government of the state, has very secretly purchased luxurious flat at Salt Lake in West Bengal keeping the toiling masses hungry and pushing their security to uncertainty. Billal Miah, MLA and President of Pradesh Youth Congress said (this) in his speech while addressing the public gathering organized by Barjala Block Congress at Natunbazar Girls School field. ‘I also have the number of the flat. A veteran member of the state’s left Front Ministry is also stunned at the Chief Minister’s (act of) secretly purchasing flat at Salt Lake. If the Chief Minister throws any challenge regarding this information, I shall disclose all information at the appropriate time and place.
At the meeting, the Pradesh Congress President Birjit Sinha expressed deep concern, mentioning in details the present situation of the state. He said-Chief Minister Manik Sarkar have utterly failed to provide security to the life of the people. Pradesh Congress President Shri Sinha said – a few months ago, the Union Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani had come to the state, not to reckon the situation of the state on the spot, he had come mainly to hold a secret discussion with the terrorists in the matter of release of 4 kidnapped RSS workers. With that aim in view, Advani, on reaching Agartala, had gone to Gandacherra by a helicopter to hold a secret meeting with the extremists. Birjit Sinha expressed intense grievance regarding the role of Advani. He alleged that it was at Advani’s support that Assam Rifles Brigadier Panwar had hatched the plot of creating disturbances in the state by way of making provocative statements regarding the statistics of races and tribes in the state. He expressed intense grievances since the central government has taken no step to impose President’s rule with a view to providing security to the life of the people. In the meeting opposition leader Jawahar Saha alleged that the state Government has utterly failed to maintain law and order in the state. He raised allegation to the effect that left Front has started plotting to capture Nuntannagar Samabay Samity is a roundabout way.
Dipak Roy, MLA and state president of INTUC requested congress President, Birjit Sinha at the meeting to state the entire state by organizing a larger movement demanding President’s Rule in the state. He sai
Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab
C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka
Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. The State of Bombay
Ghaio Mall and Sons v. The State of Delhi
Gokul Chand Dwarkadas v. The King
Gour Chandra Rout and Anr. vs. the Public Prosecutor, Cuttack
Kootha Perumal v. State through Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh
R. Chitralekha vs. State of Mysore
Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan
Rajdeep Sardesai vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Sahib Singh Mehra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA
Shanti Sports Club & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Sunny Prakash & Ors.
State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and Others
State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar
State of Bombay vs. Purushottam Jog Naik
State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.