Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: function of functionary in Karur Murali vs Public Prosecutor on 4 October, 2018Matching Fragments
7. Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. provides for aspecial 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 concerned functionary or public servant, as 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 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 1 [paragraph 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.
P.C. Joshi (supra), however, specifically dealt with the provisions of Section 198B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (?old Code?) which are pari materia with the provisions of Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. (?new Code?).
7.It is therefore, clear from the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that core reason for providing special procedure engrafted under Section 199(2) of CrPC is that the offence of defamation committed against public functionaries mentioned therein is really an offence committed against the State, as the same relates to the discharge of public function by such functionaries. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the State to pursue with the prosecution. In other words, two important criteria determine the maintainability of the criminal complaint filed for defamation through public prosecutor under Section 199(2) of CrPC viz (a) the holding of an Office and (b) a direct and reasonable nexus between the nature of the duty cast upon the public servants and the defamatory allegations made in respect of the same. The purport is on the office/post and not on the person.
16.It is relevant to rely upon the following judgments in this regard.
(a) VPR Ilamparuthi Vs. Public Prosecutor in CrlOP(MD)No.22263 of 2013, dated 18.06.2018 and
(b) R.Avudayappan Vs. Muthukaruppan, Public Prosecutor, reported in 2018-2L.W.(crl)24
17. The relevant portions of the judgment in VPR Ilamparuthi Vs. Public Prosecutor in CrlOP(MD)No.22263 of 2013, dated 18.06.2018 are extracted hereunder:
?The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in CDJ 2018 SC 391 (K.K.Mishra vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh) had categorically held that 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 the acts/conduct in the discharge of public functions of the concerned functionary or public servant, as the case may be. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended that it would not be open to this Court to see if the defamatory content has nexus with the public function or not. He wanted to this Court to appreciate the limited scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.