Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint."

29. A mere reading of sub-section (6) of Section 199 Cr.P.C. reflects that the right of a person against whom the offence of defamation is committed to file a complaint independently is saved, and is not barred by sub-section (2) and sub-section (4) of Section 199 Cr.P.C. Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. requires the complaint to be initiated by the Public Prosecutor on receipt of previous sanction of the Competent Authority in the State/Central Government in case the offence of defamation is alleged to have been committed in respect of the acts and conduct in the discharge of public functions by the concerned person. The logic behind Exception under sub-section (2) of Section 199 Cr.P.C. is that the State would be interested in prosecution, in case the offence is committed in respect of the discharge of functions by a government functionary. The aforesaid legal position stands affirmed in K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P. (supra) and the observations in para 7 to 9 may be beneficially reproduced:

"7. Section 199(2) CrPC provides for a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for the 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 may be. The prosecution under Section 199(2) CrPC 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 Code. Such a complaint is required to be filed in a Court of Session that is alone vested with the jurisdiction to hear and try the alleged offence and even without the case being committed to the said court by a subordinate court. Section 199(2) CrPC read with Section 199(4) CrPC, therefore, envisages a departure from the normal rule of initiation of a complaint before a 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 sub-section (2) of Section 199 CrPC by sub-section (6) thereof.
8. The rationale for the departure from the normal rule has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in a judgment of considerable vintage in P.C. Joshi v. State of U.P. [P.C. Joshi v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 387 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 566] (AIR pp. 391-92, para 9) The core reason which this Court held to be the rationale for the special procedure engrafted by Section 199(2) CrPC 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 procedure.