Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a case law in State vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, SCC (2005)11 600 and another case law in Emperor vs. Hasrat Mohani (1922 AIR (Bom) 294) wherein it has been observed that speech should be read as a whole and there should be sufficiently clear and direct incitement to violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government established by law in this country. It is further submitted that if the contents of the pamphlet is read as whole the same shall be demonstrated that it is for the betterment for the Muslim community and public in large as the same was the warm expression in a good faith with an intention to apprise the public at large regarding terrorism. There was absolutely no imputation with the intention of harming or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it would harm the reputation of the complainant as such no offence under sections 298,502, 121 IPC is made out. It is again submitted that in the present case there is no sanction as required under sections 196(1) (a) (b) (c) and 1A of Cr.P.C. to prosecute the applicant for the offence under Chapter VI of IPC. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has latently ignored the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code whereby the Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been amended and the word "may" has been substituted with "shall" thereby making it obligatory upon an Magistrate before issuing summons with reference to an accused who resides beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. The complainant had not produced any material whatsoever in the form of audio, video recording, transcript etc. or any other material whatsoever alongwith the complaint to show that the programme was telecasted on Peace TV channel on 21.9.2006 in Jhansi. It is also submitted that learned Magistrate mechanically summoned the applicant without appreciating the proceeding of law as also laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Limited and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 held as under:

In the case in hand the applicant was summoned under sections 109, 115, 116, 121, 298, 502, 511 IPC. It is vivid on co-joint perusal of the extract pamphlet mentioned in para no. 7 of the complaint and speech that although intention may be good but the message forwarded was that all non-Muslims are Kafirs and Muslims should be terrorist for others, who are Kafirs. Kafir, the person who does not follow Hadis and does not accept Islam and Muslim can only be terrorist to a selective people i.e. anti-social element and kafir. So far as bar under section 196 Cr.P.C. is concerned it is only against taking of cognizance by the Court. There is no bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation and also enquiry made under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka and another vs. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728 held as under:

"The opening words of the Section are "No Court shall take cognizance" and consequently the bar created by the provision is against taking of cognizance by the Court. There is no bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation, as contemplated by Section 173 Cr.P.C. If a criminal case is registered, investigation of the offence is done and the police submits a report as a result of such investigation before a Magistrate without the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate, there will be no violation of Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. and no illegality of any kind would be committed.
An order remanding an accused to judicial custody does not amount to taking cognizance of an offence. In such circumstances section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C can have no application at all and the High Court clearly erred in quashing the proceeding on the ground that previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate had not been obtained."

In the instant case only process were issued and no cognizance has been taken. Therefore, the bar under section 196 Cr.P.C. have no application. The court was to take cognizance of an offence when it applies mind to the facts of the case to proceed therewith meaning thereby at the time of framing of the charges, as a matter of fact, the prosecution could produce sanction during trial at the time of framing of the charges. Moreover, applicant has also invoked revisional power against the summoning order which was dismissed on merit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another, 1997 (4) SCC 241 held that though the power of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C is very wide yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously particularly in cases where the petitioner is shown to have already invoked the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 Cr.P.C.