A news item on various dates in the year 2007, allegedly making false
implication against the second respondent-Rajiv Trivedi, Additional
Commissioner of Police (Crimes and SIT), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, with
regard to the Sohrabuddin encounter case was published by the appellants in
the respective publications and was telecast on CNN-IBN.
A representation
was given by the second-respondent to the Andhra Pradesh State Government
seeking previous sanction under Section 199(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for prosecution of the appellants for
offences punishable under the provisions referred to supra.
Accordingly,
the previous sanction was accorded by the State Government vide G.O. Rt.
Nos. 6581, 6582, 6583 and 6580 dated 27.10.2007 in favour of the second
respondent permitting him to file complaints against the appellants through
the State Public Prosecutor before the appropriate court of law against the
individuals connected with electronic and print media as hereinbelow:
Siyasat Urdu Daily: Sri Latif Mohammad Khan
CNN-IBN English News Channel
Rajasthan Patrika (Jaipur) Hindi daily
The Deccan Chronicle English Daily
The Etemaad Urdu Daily
(points (a)-(e) are hereinafter referred to as ‘individual print and
electronic media’)
One of the above mentioned news items which was telecast on CNN-IBN English
News channel under the caption “30 minutes- Sohrabuddin the Inside Story”
on 13.5.2007 at 1730 hours, which is subject matter of CC No. 1 of 2008, is
extracted hereunder for our examination:-
“Police sources say Vanjara and Pandian nabbed Kousarbai in Bidar with help
from S.P. Rajiv Trivedi of the Hyderabad Special Investigation Unit………
Rajiv Trivedi provided cars with fake number plates in which Sohrabuddin
was brought to Ahmedabad and then killed in a fake encounter.”
sanction accorded by the State Government of
Andhra Pradesh, the criminal proceedings were initiated by the State Public
Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh against the appellants.
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the State Public Prosecutor
filed the complaints against the accused-appellants for the offences
referred to supra.
The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge before whom
complaints were instituted by the State Public Prosecutor, has taken the
cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants and passed orders
summoning them to appear before the Court for further proceedings in the
respective cases.
Challenged in High Court for Quash
allowed only Criminal Petition No. 7592 of 2007
(M.J. Akbar & Anr. v. The State of A.P.) and
dismissed all other criminal
petitions holding that the news telecast in the electronic media by CNN-IBN
and other news items published in various newspapers of the appellants per
se are integrally connected with the official discharge of duties of the
second respondent and
held that
whether the same amounts to defamatory,
libel or scandalous statements is a matter that has to be decided on the
evidence to be adduced by the parties.
The High Court further held that in
the absence of any privilege to the broadcaster on par with Section 7 of
the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the appellants cannot claim
to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them and there was no
merit to quash the said criminal proceedings against the appellants.
appeals are filed
On examining the facts, circumstances and evidence on record,
the previous sanction is accorded to launch necessary prosecution against
the CNN-IBN channel, Siyasat Urdu Daily: Sri Latif Mohammad Khan, Rajasthan
Patrika (Jaipur) Hindi daily, Deccan Chronicle English Daily and Etemaad
Urdu Daily.
By careful reading of the provision under Section 199 of
Cr.P.C., read with the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, it
provides that previous sanction must be accorded, authorising the
initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused, however, the said
provisions do not state that it is necessary to mention the names of each
one of the accused who are alleged to have committed the offence in the
same alleged transaction.
Therefore, in the case on hand, when the previous
sanction was accorded by the State Government against those who were
responsible for the telecast/publication of the news both in electronic and
print media which according to the second respondent damaged his
reputation, it is not necessary for the State Government to separately
issue sanction order against each one of the appellants, when they are all
responsible for telecasting and publishing the said news item in the
electronic and print media and also when the names of the said electronic
and print media have already been mentioned in the said sanction order.
Therefore, there is no merit in the contention urged on behalf of the
appellants that their names have not been specifically mentioned in the
said sanction order. The said contention is untenable in law and therefore,
liable to be rejected. The same is accordingly rejected.
The learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellants has
placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Gour
Chandra Rout & Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor, P.C. Joshi & Anr. v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat
(all referred to supra).
With regard to the above referred cases, the first
two cases have not dealt with the exercise of power under Section 199 of
Cr.P.C., except stating the ministerial exercise of power by the State
Government while exercising its power under Section 198B (3)(a) of Cr.P.C,
1898.
In so far as the third case referred to supra upon which the reliance
placed upon by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellants, the
same is in relation to the previous sanction to be accorded by the State
Government for the purpose of prosecution under the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
Therefore, none of the above cases on which
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants
have any relevance to the fact situation on hand.
Having regard to the scheme of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955,
the complainant-second respondent during the relevant point of time was the
Police Officer in the services of the State Government and he cannot
prosecute the appellants in a court of law without obtaining previous
sanction from the State Government as contemplated under the aforesaid
provisions of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in order to prosecute the appellants, the
second respondent made a representation to the State Government along with
a petition with regard to initiation of criminal proceedings against the
appellants under the provisions referred to supra in respect of which he
has sought the sanction of the State Government. On appreciation of the
same, the State Government in exercise of its administrative powers
appreciated the facts of the matter, rightly applied its mind and accorded
the sanction under Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C. in favour of the second
respondent to initiate criminal proceedings under the provisions referred
to supra against the appellants. The said sanction was accorded by the
State Government after appreciating that the statements telecast/published
by the appellants in the electronic and print media as well as the
statement given by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 853 of 2012 in the
Urdu Daily on the basis of which the news is published by its Editor, which
are all statements defaming the second respondent while he was discharging
his public function as a public servant. Therefore, the contention on
behalf of the appellants that there was no application of mind on the part
of the State Government in according the said sanction is wholly untenable
in law, liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.
By careful reading of Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C., it does not indicate
that in order to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused, the
public servant needs to obtain sanction from the State Government in
respect of each one of the persons against whom the same transaction of
offence is alleged and the names of the accused are required to be
mentioned specifically in the sanction order accorded by the State
Government. It is sufficient if one sanction is accorded to prosecute all
the concerned persons involved in that occurrence, thus, the contention on
behalf of the appellants in this regard is also liable to be rejected and
is accordingly rejected.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugnedthat in order to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused, the
public servant needs to obtain sanction from the State Government in
respect of each one of the persons against whom the same transaction of
offence is alleged and the names of the accused are required to be
mentioned specifically in the sanction order accorded by the State
Government. It is sufficient if one sanction is accorded to prosecute all
the concerned persons involved in that occurrence, thus, the contention on
behalf of the appellants in this regard is also liable to be rejected and
is accordingly rejected.
judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in rejecting the
petitions for quashing the initiation of criminal proceedings against the
appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is perfectly legal and valid,
the same does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction as there is no substantial question of law framed in
the appeals nor is there any miscarriage of justice for the appellants to
interfere with at this stage. In our considered view, having regard to the
nature of the complaint, the respondents are required to prove the
allegations against the appellants by adducing valid and cogent evidence,
the same has to be considered by the trial court and accordingly record the
findings on the merits of the case. The appeals are devoid of merit,
liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The orders granting
stay of further proceedings before the trial court shall stand vacated.- 2015 S.C.MSKLAWREPORTS
