2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17939

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
M/S AMODHA BROADCASTING COMPANY PIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRLRC 1336/2025

A Public Prosecutor appointed exclusively for the High Court cannot file defamation complaints under Section 199(2) CrPC before Sessions Courts without special appointment; and mandatory procedural safeguards under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC must be followed before taking cognizance.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 199(2) and 199(4) - Public Prosecutor - Locus standi - A Public Prosecutor appointed exclusively for the High Court under Section 24(1) cannot file a complaint under Section 199(2) before a Sessions Court unless specially appointed with special reasons for that purpose; the complaints filed by a 'State' Public Prosecutor are jurisdictionally suspect. (Paras 30-36)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 202 - Inquiry prior to issuance of process - Where accused reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, it is mandatory to conduct an inquiry or investigation under Section 202 before issuing summons. (Paras 57-58)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499 and 500 - Defamation - Mens rea - Essential ingredients - To constitute defamation, there must be an intention to harm reputation or knowledge that the imputation will harm the reputation; mere criticism of government functioning or policy does not constitute defamation in the absence of malice. (Paras 42-50)

(D) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech and expression - Freedom of the press - The right to criticize government policies and the functioning of public corporations is a vital component of democratic discourse; criminal defamation cannot be used as a political tool to suppress legitimate criticism. (Paras 48-50) (E) Constitution of India - Article 199 (of Cr.P.C.) - Government cannot maintain a suit for defamation - A government body cannot sue for defamation unless a specific holder of constitutional office or a public servant is defamed in respect of their public functions. (Paras 51-52) (F) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 200 - Examination of complainant - The Public Prosecutor, as complainant, must be examined on oath under Section 200 before cognizance is taken; failure to do so constitutes an irregularity. (Paras 60-67) (G) Press and Registration of Books Act, 2023 - Section 3 - Statutory presumption - Without producing the full newspaper edition containing the statutory particulars of the printer, publisher, and place of printing, no presumption can be drawn regarding the identity of the editor, printer, or publisher. (Para 62)

Facts of the case:
These four criminal revision cases arose from orders of cognizance passed by different Sessions Courts in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, in defamation complaints filed by the State Public Prosecutor against a media company, its managing director, printer & publisher, editor, and bureau chief. The complaints related to four separate publications in the Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily newspaper: (i) an article dated 20.06.2023 about alleged decline in passenger patronage of APSRTC; (ii) an article dated 15.08.2020 alleging surveillance on the judiciary by the State Government; (iii) an article dated 03.02.2023 linking the Chief Secretary's travel to the homicide of a former minister; and (iv) an article dated 13.02.2020 alleging the Prime Minister expressed dissatisfaction with the State Government. The petitioners challenged the orders of cognizance on grounds of lack of locus standi, non-compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC, and violation of freedom of speech.

Findings of Court:
The High Court set aside the orders of cognizance, holding that: (i) the Public Prosecutor appointed for the High Court lacked jurisdiction to file complaints before Sessions Courts without special appointment; (ii) the learned Trial Courts failed to examine the complainant under Section 200 and conduct an inquiry under Section 202, despite the accused residing outside the jurisdiction; (iii) the complaints did not establish the essential ingredient of mens rea for defamation; (iv) the government cannot maintain a defamation suit; (v) the impugned publications pertained to matters of public interest and did not constitute criminal defamation; (vi) the orders of cognizance lacked reasons as required by law.

Issues: The main issues were: (i) whether the Public Prosecutor appointed for the High Court can file complaints under Section 199(2) CrPC before Sessions Courts; (ii) whether the mandatory procedure under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC was followed; (iii) whether the complaints disclosed the essential ingredients of criminal defamation; (iv) whether the government has locus standi to file defamation complaints; (v) whether the prosecutions infringed on freedom of speech and expression.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that: (i) the Public Prosecutor appointed for the High Court under Section 24(1) CrPC cannot file complaints under Section 199(2) before Sessions Courts without special appointment; (ii) the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, including examination of the complainant and inquiry where accused reside outside jurisdiction, is mandatory; (iii) criminal defamation requires mens rea, and mere criticism of government functioning does not constitute defamation; (iv) the government cannot maintain defamation proceedings under Section 499 IPC; (v) freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) protects fair criticism of governance.

Result: Criminal Revision Cases allowed; orders of cognizance and all further proceedings in C.C. Nos.27/2023, 4/2023, 14/2023, and 5/2023 set aside; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Table of Content
1. court's jurisdiction and case filing details. (Para 1)
2. factual matrix of four criminal revision cases. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. petitioners' arguments against cognizance orders. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. state's arguments supporting cognizance orders. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. point for consideration and revisability of orders. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. public prosecutor's role and jurisdiction under section 199 cr.p.c. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
7. ingredients of defamation and freedom of speech balance. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
8. procedural errors in taking cognizance by trial court. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
9. violation of constitutional rights and procedural lapses. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)
10. conclusion and final order of the court. (Para 75 , 76)

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Revision Cases filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the BNSS are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as they pertain to identical offences involving noticeably the same set of accused, all result from a connected factual condition.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Criminal Revision Case No.1287 of 2025 has been filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2023 rendered in C.C.No.27 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, arising out of a complaint pertaining to a publication dated 20.06.2023 in the Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily, wherein the accused persons, viz., the Company, its Managing Director, Printer & Publisher, Editor, and Bureau Chief, are alleged to have disseminated defamatory imputations against the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) by portraying a purported decline in passenger patronage, maladministration, and mismanagement under the incumbent dispensation; the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contends that such publication constitutes libel calculated to malign the reputation of the Government and its officials, whereas in rejoinder APSRTC has placed on record official comparative data evidencing enhanced performance in 2022-23 vis-à-vis 2019-20, including augmentation of revenue by 17%, increase in earnings per kilometre by 21%, induction of new diesel and electric buses, provision of compassionate appointments, and receipt of Governmental financial assistance exceeding Rs.10,336 Crores since 2020, while further clarifying that only 214 buses were scrapped as against the misreported figure of 980, and highlighting initiatives such as maintenance of normal fares during festive seasons, expansion of cargo operations, and rationalization of interstate services with Telangana.

3. Criminal Revision Case No.1336 of 2025 has been instituted feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.4 of 2023 on the file of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, arising out of a complaint relating to a publication dated 15.08.2020 in the Telugu daily Andhra Jyothi under the caption “(cid:2005)(cid:2329) య(cid:1979)వత(cid:2031) (cid:2006)(cid:1733)!” (“Surveillance on the Judiciary”), wherein imputations were made alleging that the Government of Andhra Pradesh was subjecting Hon’ble Judges of the High Court to surveillance; the complainant, the Public Prosecutor of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, duly authorized under G.O.Rt.No.874, Home (SC-B) Department, dated 26.09.2022, contends that the said article was unverified, scandalous, and actuated by mala fides with intent to tarnish the reputation of the Government, thereby constituting offences of defamation punishable under Sections 499 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) read with Section 120B of ‘the I.P.C.’; it is further averred that a legal notice dated 15.08.2020 was issued to the accused requiring an u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document