Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Conversation has been made from the Chief Minister’s house by an influential woman through 139 phone calls with the accused of Vyapam Scam Nitin Mahendra, Pankaj Trivedi, Lakshmikant Sharma.'

7. Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. is required to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis & 887 of 2024 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 Sessions 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) 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 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 Cr.P.C. 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 and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1961 SC 387 : 1961 (1) Crl.L.J. 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) 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 procedure.

11. A careful reading of the said judgment of the Apex Court shows that Section 199(2) of the Code carves out a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for the offence of defamation committed against a public servant/constitutional functionary. To initiate such a complaint on behalf of a public servant/constitutional functionary, there must be a valid sanction of the Competent Authority under Section 199(4) of the Code. Therefore, Sections 199(2) and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis & 887 of 2024 199(4) of the Code envisage a departure from the normal procedure that is followed for initiation of a complaint before the Magistrate by an aggrieved person alleging the offence of defamation. The Apex Court, in the said judgment, observed that the problem of correlation of the acts, which are allegedly defamatory and those connected with the discharge of public functions of the public servant/constitutional functionary, is, by no means, an easy task. The Apex Court has cautioned that the Court must carefully look into the allegations/ imputations and see if they have any nexus with the discharge of public duties by the public servant/constitutional functionary and only then, the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the public servant/constitutional functionary is maintainable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis & 887 of 2024

(c) Whether the statements/imputations made constitute defamation as defined under Section 499 of the IPC ? and

(d) Whether the defamatory statement has a direct and reasonable nexus with the discharge of public functions of the public servant/constitutional functionary.