Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. There is yet another dimension to the case. In Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India3 one of the grounds on which the 3 (2016) 7 SCC 221 challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 499 and 500 IPC was sustained by this Court was the understanding that Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. provide an inbuilt safeguard which require the Public Prosecutor to scan and be satisfied with the materials on the basis of which a complaint for defamation is to be filed by him acting as the Public Prosecutor. In this regard, an earlier decision of this Court in Bairam Muralidhar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh4 while dealing with Section 321 Cr.P.C. (i.e. Withdrawal from prosecution) was considered by this Court and it was held as follows:

51. It is correct to say that before filing the complaint, I have not given any legal notice to the accused in connection with this fact that whether objections were raised against the Hon’ble Chief Minister in Press Conference or not.”

14. The testimony of the Public Prosecutor in his cross-examination effectively demonstrates that the wholesome requirement spelt out by Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C., as expounded by this Court in Subramanian Swamy (supra), has not been complied with in the present case. A Public Prosecutor filing a complaint under Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C. without due satisfaction that the materials/allegations in complaint discloses an offence against an Authority or against a public functionary which adversely affects the interests of the State would be abhorrent to the principles on the basis of which the special provision under Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. has been structured as held by this Court in P.C. Joshi (supra) and Subramanian Swamy (supra). The public prosecutor in terms of the statutory scheme under the Criminal Procedure Code plays an important role. He is supposed to be an independent person and apply his mind to the materials placed before him. As held in Bairam Muralidhar case supra) “……He cannot remain oblivious to his lawful obligations under the Code. He is required to constantly remember his duty to the court as well as his duty to the collective.” In the present case, the press meet was convened by the appellant on 21.06.2014. The government accorded sanction to the public prosecutor to file complaint under Section 500 IPC against the appellant on 24.06.2014. As seen from the records, the complaint was filed by the public prosecutor against the appellant on the very same day i.e. 24.06.2014. The haste with which the complaint was filed prima facie indicates that the public prosecutor may not have applied his mind to the materials placed before him as held in Bairam Muralidhar case (supra). We, therefore, without hesitation, take the view that the complaint is not maintainable on the very face of it and would deserve our interference.