AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Muktadar, J.—The facts giving rite to this case are that the Public Prosecutor filed a complaint against one Anwar Kamal Khundemiri-an Editor and Publisher of a paper - on the ground that the Collector and District Panchayat Officer have been defamed, u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the District Collector is involved in this case, having regard to the provisions of Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Public Prosecutor had to file this complaint. The Sessions Judge took cognizance of the complaint but by his order dated 15-6-1978 transferred the case over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad, for disposal according to law since he was of the opinion that as per the provisions of Schedule-I of the Criminal Procedure Code the offence of defarmation is triable by the First Class Magistrate. In is this order which is being challenged in this revision. A reading of Section 199 (2) and Column 2 of Schedule-I dealing with Section 500 might give an impression that the Schedule does not mention about any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of a State and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that since the District Collector and the District Panchayat Officer were involved they would be dealt with by the Judicial First Class Magistrate. To my mind, this order is contrary to the provisions of Section 199 (2) read with Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 199 (2) read as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State,. or of a union territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor.
A plain reading of sub-section (2) would show that when defamation is alleged to have been committed against the authorities mentioned therein, it is the public prosecutor who is empowered to file the complaint against the accused and the complaint would be filed directly in the Court of Session taking cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) of Section 199 shall try the case in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report before a Court of Magistrate. Therefore, if Section 199 (2) is read in conjunction with Section 237, it becomes evident that when the Public Prosecutor files a complaint in the Court of Session for an offence punishable u/s 500 IPC, in cases provided u/s 199 (2) Cr.P.C., it is the Court of Session which would take cognizance of the case and would try it in accordance with the procedure meant for trial of warrant cases -instituted otherwise than on a police report before a Court of Magistrate.
A perusal of Column 2 of Schedule I to the Code of Criminal Procedure would show that the words "any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State" are missing There after the Column contains the words "defamation in any other case" is to be tried by Magistrate of the first class. It looks to me that the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that since column 2 of schedule I dealing with section 500 IPC, does not contain the words "any other public servant" the case comes within the meaning of an offence viz., defamation in any other case" contained in the same column, to be tried by a Magistrate of the First Class. The learned Sessions Judge should have noted the Explanatory Note (1) to the First Schedule which provides as follows :-
"In regard to offences under the Indian Penal Code, the entries in the second and third column against a section the number of which is given in the first column are not intended as the definition of, and the punishment prescribed for, the offence in the Indian Penal Code, but merely as indication of subtance of the section".
A reading of this explanatory note would show that offences mentioned in column 2 of the first schedule are only indications of the substance of the section. Therefore, if Column (2) does not embody the entire section it does not mean that the Legislature intended that what is not embodied in Column 2 comes within the ambit of "other offences" and, therefore, such a case of defamation should be tried by a Magistrate of First Class. Thus, if section 199 (2) is read in conjunction with section 237 and Explanatory Note (1) to Schedule-I, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it becomes clear that Schedule I Column 2 dealing with Section 500 IPC, is inclusive of the words "public servant of a State" and as such it is the Court of Session which would have jurisdiction to try the case.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot stand and it is hereby set aside. The revision is accordingly allowed and the case is remanded back to the Sessions Court, Adilabad, for disposal according to law.