AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J.—Since both the above petitions filed for quashment of criminal complaint cases are involving common question, they are being disposed of by this common order. By filing M. Cr. C. No. 731/2004 u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner Vivek Goenka has prayed for quashment of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1064/2003 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba for the offence punishable u/s 500 of the IPC against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2.
By filing M. Cr. C. No. 2867/2004 u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner Vijay Budhia has prayed for quashment of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1064/2003 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba for the offence punishable u/s 500 of the IPC.
As per copy of the complaint and other documents, petitioner Vivek Goenka, resident of Mumbai, is Chairman of Board of Jansatta daily newspaper and petitioner Vijay Budhia is Printer & Publisher of Jansatta daily newspaper. The Jansatta daily newspaper, Raipur edition, has published a news on 2-6-2003 with a heading that (I) On the basis of aforesaid publication, respondent Smt. Bharti Ogre i.e. the then public servant, Deputy Collector, has filed complaint. After enquiry under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court below has registered offence punishable u/s 500 of the IPC against the petitioners herein.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petitions, copies of the complaints and other documents.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner Vivek Goenka is not editor of the Jansatta daily newspaper and not responsible for publication or commission of offence, only editor of the newspaper will be responsible for criminal prosecution u/s 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Petitioner Vijay Budhia is printer & publisher of the daily newspaper Jansatta. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the complainant has failed to show that the petitioners were in charge of the publication or were editors of the aforesaid newspaper. In absence of such prima facie material, by taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners, the Court below has committed illegality.
Learned Senior Advocate placed reliance in the matter of K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and another, in which the Supreme Court has held that in absence of any allegation against the person other than the editor, the said person is not responsible for commission of the offence of defamation.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents oppose the petitions and submit that petitioner Vivek Goenka is owner of Jansatta group and petitioner Vijay Budhia is Printer & Publisher, they were responsible for such publication of the defamatory article.
Admittedly, aforesaid article has been published in the Raipur edition of the Jansatta daily newspaper. The petitioners are not Editor or in-charge Editor or main Editor of the Jansatta daily newspaper. In order to implicate the petitioners, the respondents were under obligation to allege and state that how the petitioners were responsible for such selection of news and publication of such news. However, the complainant has not made such definite allegation that the petitioners were responsible for aforesaid publication. Even otherwise, the news published shows that Deputy Collector Jatav was interested in revocation of some pratishthan which shows that the matter has been published against the complainant who was a public servant. In case of any vindication against the public servant, the public servant was under obligation to obtain permission from his employer in terms of Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short ''the Rules'') which reads as follows:--
Vindication of acts and character of Government servant.-
(1) No Government servant shall except with the previous sanction of the Government, have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of a defamatory character.
(2) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit a Government servant from vindicating his private character or any act done by him in his private capacity and where any action for vindicating his private character or any act done by him in private capacity is taken, the Government servant shall submit a report to the prescribed authority regarding such action.
In the present case, the respondent/complainant has failed to show such permission of the employer.
It is not disputed that the respondent/complainant was a Government servant at the time of such publication and Rule 20 of the Rules was applicable to her.
Rule 20 of the Rules provides that a Government servant is not competent to vindicate his/her official act relating to subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of a defamatory character without previous sanction of the Government, but the rule does not prohibit a Government servant from vindicating his/her private character or any act done by him/her in his/her private capacity, he/she is only required to submit a report.
As held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of K. Bhagwan Vs. Basant Kumar Ramole 1983 MPLJ Note 28, the respondent/complainant was Deputy Collector. News was published against the Deputy Collector, essentially and basically referring to the conduct of the Deputy Collector as a public servant. The publication did not indicate any assassination of her individual and personal character. In that case, it was held that there was full reasonable connection between the complainant''s acts and her discharge of duties, therefore, without sanction as required under Rule 20(1) of the Rules, the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent/complainant was not competent.
In absence of any such sanction, complaint filed on behalf of the respondent/complainant was not maintainable. Prosecution or vindication without permission is not maintainable.
Therefore, the complaint filed on behalf of the public servant is without sanction under Rule 20 of the Rules and is in absence of clear allegation against the petitioners that they were in-charge of the publication. The complaint filed on behalf of the complainant was not competent and not maintainable before the Court below. While taking cognizance against the petitioners the Court below has committed illegality. In the circumstances, continuance of such criminal proceeding against the petitioners would be abuse of process of the Court. Consequently, M. Cr. C. Nos. 731/2004 and 2867/2004 are allowed. Criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba viz., Criminal Complaint Case No. 1064/2003 is hereby quashed.