Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. R. James and J. N. Takru, JJ.
MUNESHWARA NAND - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 2419 Of 1958
Decided On : 03/30/1960
The court held that the complaint by the Public Prosecutor under Section 198b(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is sufficient to initiate cognizance of the offence of defamation against a public servant, and the public servant concerned is not a necessary party to the complaint. The court also held that the words "in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions" in Section 198b(1) of the CrPC cover a wider field than what has been held by the Supreme Court in examining Section 197(1).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a journalist, published an article in his newspaper defaming Dr. Ram Lal, a District Medical Officer of Health. The article alleged that Dr. Ram Lal was not doing any work, that he spent all his time with his wife, that he had not done anything for the people of the district, and that he had used force on his successor when the latter came to take over charge. Dr. Ram Lal filed a complaint against the appellant under Section 198b(1) of the CrPC, which allows the Public Prosecutor to file a complaint in cases of defamation against public servants. The appellant challenged the validity of the complaint on the ground that Dr. Ram Lal was a necessary party to the complaint and that the imputations made against him did not relate to his conduct in the discharge of his public functions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint by the Public Prosecutor under Section 198b(1) of the CrPC is sufficient to initiate cognizance of the offence of defamation against a public servant, and the public servant concerned is not a necessary party to the complaint. The court also held that the words "in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions" in Section 198b(1) of the CrPC cover a wider field than what has been held by the Supreme Court in examining Section 197(1). The court found that the imputations made against Dr. Ram Lal related to his conduct in the discharge of his public functions and that the complaint was therefore valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint by the Public Prosecutor under Section 198b(1) of the CrPC is sufficient to initiate cognizance of the offence of defamation against a public servant, or whether the public servant concerned is a necessary party to the complaint? 2. Whether the words "in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions" in Section 198b(1) of the CrPC cover a wider field than what has been held by the Supreme Court in examining Section 197(1)? 3. Whether the imputations made against Dr. Ram Lal related to his conduct in the discharge of his public functions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complaint by the Public Prosecutor under Section 198b(1) of the CrPC is sufficient to initiate cognizance of the offence of defamation against a public servant, and the public servant concerned is not a necessary party to the complaint. The court relied on the plain meaning of the words in Section 198b(1), which do not require the public servant to be a party to the complaint, and on the fact that the purpose of Section 198b is to protect public servants from the embarrassment of having to file a private prosecution in cases of defamation. 2. The court held that the words "in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions" in Section 198b(1) of the CrPC cover a wider field than what has been held by the Supreme Court in examining Section 197(1). The court noted that the Supreme Court has held that the words "act done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty as a servant of the Crown" in Section 197(1) have a narrow scope and do not cover all acts done by a public servant in the course of his employment. However, the court found that the words "in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions" in Section 198b(1) are broader and encompass a wider range of conduct by public servants. 3. The court found that the imputations made against Dr. Ram Lal related to his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. The court noted that the imputations alleged that Dr. Ram Lal was not doing any work, that he spent all his time with his wife, that he had not done anything for the people of the district, and that he had used force on his successor when the latter came to take over charge. The court found that these imputations related to Dr. Ram Lal's performance of his duties as a District Medical Officer of Health and that they were therefore covered by the words "in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions" in Section 198b(1).
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for defamation.
( 1 ) MUNESHWARA Nand Tyagi is the editor, printer and publisher of "chingari", a Hindi weekly newspaper issued from Bijnor. At the relevant time Dr. Ram Lal was the District Medical Officer of Health at Bijnor, and had been serving in that district for a little over three years. In its issue of 7-3-1956, "chingari" published a news-item referring to Dr. Ram Lal by name and stating that he had been transferred from the district and that with his transfer all the defects of the Health department would disappear. The authorities took no notice of that news-item. Then, in the following issue, that of 14-3-1956, there appeared an article under the caption "samayak charcha; transfer and staghan". This did not refer to any public servant by name but purported to be about "a Health Officer of a district". This article was considered highly defamatory to Dr. Ram Lal, hence the District magistrate wrote to the State Government recommending that Muneshwara Nands prosecution for an offence under Section 500. P. C. be sanctioned under Section 198b "cr. P. C. (which was inserted in the Code by Central Act No. XXVI of 1955 ). The required sanction was duly accorded, and consequent to it the Public Prosecutor, under the provisions of Clause (1) of section 198b, filed a complaint in the Court of Session at Bijnor against Muneshwara Nand under Section 500. P. C. Dr. Ram Lal did not join in that complaint, nor did he lodge any himself. On the Public Prosecutors complaint the Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence. The charge that he framed quoted certain passages from the aforesaid article of the 14th March and recited that by the imputations contained therein Muneshwara Nand intended to harm, or knew or had reason to believe that they would harm, the reputation of Dr. Ram Lal. Muneshwara nand admitted publishing the article in question but the only defence he set up was that it did not refer to Dr. Ram Lal at all but to an imaginary Health Officer and that its object was simply to criticise the policy of the State Government with regard to transfers of Government servants. After a careful consideration of the evidence produced on behalf of the parties and the arguments addressed by their counsel, the learned Judge repelled the defence plea, found Muneshwara nand guilty of the offence punishable under Section 500,. P, C, and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and to a Gne of Rs. 200/ -. He appealed to the High Court, and before the Honble single Judge who initially heard the appeal contended that the trial and conviction were invalid inasmuch as the Public Prosecutors com" plaint had not been joined by Dr. Ram Lal, the public servant allegedly libelled. Considering that an authoritative decision on this legal point was necessary, the Honble Judge referred the case to a larger Bench. It was accordingly made over to us for hearing, and we have heard Mr. Asif Ansari for the convict appellant and Mr. J. R. Bhatt for the State at considerable length on the point raised before the Honble single Judge and on other points as well.
( 2 ) THE points raised by Mr. Ansari are four in number and are these :
(1) That by virtue of Clause (13), of Section 198b and Section 198 of the Code Dr. Ram Lal was bound to join the Public Prosecutors complaint, and since he failed to do so cognizance of the offence on the sole complaint of the Public Prosecutor could not be taken;
(2) that Dr. Ram Lal, though a public servant, was not employed in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh, hence Section 198b did not apply and the Sessions Judge could not take cognizance of the offence;
(3) that the imputations were not in respect of Dr. Ram Lals conduct in the discharge of his official functions, hence Section 198b did not apply;
(4) that the impugned article was not against Dr. Ram Lal, but against an imaginary person, hence no offence under Section 500. P. C, was committed. We shall take up these points ad seriatim.
(
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
