Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"14. There is yet another dimension to the case. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 one of the grounds on which the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC was sustained by this Court was the understanding that Sections 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, and earlier decision of this court in Bairam Muralidhar v. State of A.P. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 380 while dealing with Section 321 Cr.P.C. (i.e. withdrawal from prosecution) was considered by this Court and it was held as follows:
(Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221, SCC 349, Para 203) "203.....It is ordinarily expected that the Public Prosecutor has a duty to scan the materials on the basis of which a complaint for 2025:CHC-AS:2011 defamation is to be filed. He has a duty towards the court. This court in Bairam Muralidhar V. State of A.P. while deliberating on Section 321 Cr.P.C. has opined that the Public Prosecutor cannot act like a post office on behalf of the State Government. He is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record and form an independent opinion. It further observed that he cannot remain oblivious to his lawful obligations under the Code and is required to constantly remember his duty to the court as well as his duty to the collective. While filing cases under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, he is expected to maintain that independence and not act as a machine." (emphasis supplied)

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."

(emphasis supplied)

16. The testimony of the Public Prosecutor in his cross-examination effectively demonstrates that 2025:CHC-AS:2011 the wholesome requirement spelt out by Sections 199(2) and 199(4) CrPC, as expounded by this Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, has not been complied with in the present case. A Public Prosecutor filing a complaint under Section 199(2) CrPC 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 Sections 199(2) and 199(4) CrPC has been structured as held by this Court in P.C. Joshi v. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 387 and Subramanian Swamy v.