Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. also does not bar a constitutional functionary/public servant from personally launching prosecution for criminal defamation before the Magistrate under section 199(6) Cr.P.C. even in cases of defamation in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. The intention of the legislature would never have been to overlap the applicability of subsections within a section. The rule of harmonious construction comes into play. The rule falls on the premise that every statute/section has a purpose of intent as per law and should be meaningful. The rule of Harmonious construction is the thumb rule while interpreting any statute. The interpretation which makes the enactment consistent and the interpretation which avoids inconsistency or repugnancy should be the aim of the courts. Therefore there is an intelligible differentia between subsection (2) and subsection (6) of  W.P.No.5129 of 2012 etc., batch section 199. Subsection (2) is the procedure for launching prosecution in case of defamation against the State and subsection (6) is for personal defamation even if it is a case of defamation against a public servant/constitutional functionary in the discharge of his public functions which are personal in nature and where state has not been defamed. Public servant/constitutional authority is required to do selfless service to the State. The Legislature would never have intended to launch prosecution through a Public Prosecutor to serve the personal interest of the public servant/constitutional authority alone, even if the said defamation of the public servant/constitutional authority was made in the discharge of his / her public functions. Unless, the element of the State also being defamed along with the public servant/constitutional authority is satisfied, the question of launching prosecution through the public prosecutor under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C will never arise as it involves a special procedure for criminal defamation against the State. The subtle difference between Section 199(2) and 199(6) Cr.P.C is also supported by decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court which will be discussed by this court in the forthcoming paragraphs of this common Order.

32. The latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K.Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2018) 6 SCC 676 has cleared the doubts conclusively as to when Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. can be invoked through a Public Prosecutor for launching prosecution for criminal defamation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in the case of PC Joshi and another vs The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1961 SC 387 and held as follows:

a) Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. provides for a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for offence of defamation committed against the constitutional functionaries and public servants mentioned therein. However, the offence alleged to have been committed must be in respect of acts/conduct in the discharge of public functions of the functionary or public servant concerned, as the case may be. The prosecution under section 199(2) Cr.P.C. is required to be initiated by the public prosecutor on receipt of a previous sanction of the competent authority in the State/Central Government under section 199(4) of the  W.P.No.5129 of 2012 etc., batch code. Such a Complaint is required to be filed in a Court of Sessions which is alone vested with the jurisdiction to hear and try the alleged offence even without the case being committed to the said court by a subordinate court. Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. read with section 199(4)Cr.P.C., therefore envisages a departure from the normal rule of initiation of a Complaint before the Magistrate by the affected persons alleging the offence of defamation. The said right, however, is saved even in cases of the category of persons mentioned in subsection (2) of section 199 Cr.P.C. by subsection( 6) thereof.

b) The rationale for the departure from the normal rule has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment of considerable vintage in PC Joshi and another vs The state of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1961 SC 387. The core reason which the Court held to be rationale for the special procedure engrafted by Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. is that the offence of defamation committed against the functionaries mentioned therein is really an offence committed against the State as the same relate to the discharge of public functions by such functionaries. The State, therefore, would be rightly interested in pursuing the prosecution; hence the special provision and the special  W.P.No.5129 of 2012 etc., batch procedure.

 W.P.No.5129 of 2012 etc., batch In this case, the first petitioner was the Editor, Printer and Publisher, the second petitioner was the Associate Editor, the third and fourth petitioners were the reporters of the Bi-weekly Tamil Magazine “Nakheeran” when the alleged defamatory article was published. The magazine published in its issue dated 2012 July 11th to 13th a report based on a) an alleged interview with a lady, who claimed to be the daughter of late Chief Minister and b) the alleged interview of her Advocate. Eventhough, the Petitioner claims that other publications like "Kumudham-Reporter" and "Junior-Vikatan" have also published similar news and information in an elaborate manner much more inciteful than the petitioner's publication, that is immaterial if the report published is utter falsehood and has been published with malice. However by the alleged defamation, neither the State is defamed or the Constututional functionary has been defamed while discharging her public functions. Hence Section 199(2) Cr.P.C is not attracted though prosection under section 199(6) by the constitutional functionary is maintainable as prima facie the statement seems defamatory. As in the previous cases, there is total non-application of mind by the State, Public Prosecutor and the  W.P.No.5129 of 2012 etc., batch Sessions court as neither the state has been defamed nor the defamation arises out of the conduct of the constitutional functionary in the discharge of her public functions and hence the complaint filed through a public prosecutor is not maintainable. Hence the Writ petition will have to be allowed.