Page 1

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.857 OF 2012

RAJDEEP SARDESAI                   ………APPELLANT

Vs.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.            …RESPONDENTS

WITH   

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.853 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.854 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.856 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.858 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.851 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.850 OF 2012,

AND

Page 2

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               2

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.852 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

     The present group of appeals is directed against

the  final  common  judgment  and  order  dated  29.4.2011

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  of  Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1638 of

2008  and  batch  matters  whereby,  the  High  Court

dismissed  all  the  criminal  petitions  except  Criminal

Petition No. 7592 of 2007, which were filed against the

order of summoning in various complaints filed by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the second

respondent. The following table would be apposite to

clarify which appeal is filed against which criminal

petition/complaint case:-

Page 3

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               3

Crl.  Appeal  Nos. before this Court

Crl.  Petns. arising  from Complaint Nos.

Complaint filed  for defamation under Section (s)against appellants

Permission given  for filing complaint vide Sanction Nos.

857/2012 (Rajdeep Sardesai v. State  of  A.P.  & ors.) 850/2012 (Sidhartha  Gautam  v. State of A.P. & Ors.) 852/2012 (Swati  Vashistha  & Anr. v. State of A.P. & Ors.) 853/2012 (V.K.  Shashikuamr  v. State of A.P. & Ors.) 855/2012 (Ahmed  Ali  Shaik  & Anr. v. State of A.P. & Ors.) 856/2012 (Hemender  Sharma  & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors.)

Crl.  P.  Nos. 1874, 1590, 1646 &  1638  of  2008 filed  before High  Court against  CC  No. 1/2008  -  reg. telecasting  a news  programme in  CNN-IBN English  News channel  under the  caption  “20 minutes-Sohrabud din   Inside Story”  on 13.5.2007  at 1730 hrs.  

199(2) Cr.PC before  the Court  IV, Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally imposing charges under Sections 499, 500 and 120B of IPC

G.O.  Rt. No.6581 dated 27.10.2007

Crl.A.Nos.854/2012 (Gulab  Kothari  & Ors.  v.  State  of A.P. & Anr.) and  858/2012 (Hemender Sharma & Ors.  v.  State  of A.P. & Ors.

Crl. P. No. 264 of  2008 before High  Court against  CC No.3/2008-reg. publication  of news  item  in Rajasthan Patrika, Saturday  Edn. dated 12.5.2007 under  the Heading “Vanjara  Par Kastha Phanda  

199(2)  r/w Sec.  200 Cr.PC before the Court of II  Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, imposing charges under  Ss. 499,  500, 501, 502 and 120B of IPC

G.O.  Rt. No.6582 dated 27.10.2007

Page 4

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               4

Crl.A.851/2012 (Lateef Mohammad Khan v.  State  of  A.P.  & Anr.)

Crl.  P.  No.1252 of  2008 filed before  High Court  against CC No.24/2007-reg. publication  of news  items  in Siasath  Urdu Daily,  dated 8.5.2007  

199(2)  r/w Sec.200 Cr.PC before the court of I  Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad imposing allegations under Sections 499,  500, 501, 502 and 120B of IPC

G.O.  Rt. No.6580  and dated 27.10.2007

2. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:

     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

Page 5

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               5

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:

a) Siyasat Urdu Daily: Sri Latif Mohammad Khan b) CNN-IBN English News Channel c) Rajasthan Patrika (Jaipur) Hindi daily d) The Deccan Chronicle English Daily e) The Etemaad Urdu Daily

(points  (a)-(e)  are  hereinafter  referred  to  as

‘individual print and electronic media’)

3. 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

Page 6

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               6

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.”

4. Pursuant to the above said 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

Page 7

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               7

before  the  Court  for  further  proceedings  in  the

respective cases.

5. Aggrieved by the summoning orders passed by the

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in C.C. No. 27

of 2007, C.C. NO. 3 of 2007, and C.C. No.24 of 2007,

the appellants filed Crl. P. Nos. 7592 of 2007, 264 of

2008  and  1252  of  2008  under  Section  482  of  Cr.P.C.

before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking to

quash the same, urging various legal contentions.

6.   The High Court after hearing all the above said

petitions together, adverting to the previous sanction

order accorded in favour of respondent No. 2 by the

State  Government  under  Section  199(4)(b)  of  the

Cr.P.C.,  permitting  the  State  Public  Prosecutor  to

initiate criminal proceedings for the offences alleged

against  the  appellants  referred  to  supra  and  after

dealing  with  the  contentions  with  regard  to  the

legality and validity of the said sanction orders read

with the Rules and adverting to various judgments of

this Court, allowed only Criminal Petition No. 7592 of

Page 8

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               8

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. Aggrieved by the common order of the

High Court, these appeals are filed by the appellants

raising  certain  substantial  questions  of  law  for

consideration of this Court.

Page 9

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               9

7.   Learned senior counsel Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar

appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  in  Criminal

Appeal Nos. 850, 852, 853, 855, 856, 857 of 2012 has

contended that the State Public Prosecutor cannot make

a complaint under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. against an

individual  in  respect  of  whom  no  sanction  has  been

accorded  by  the  State  Government  as  required  under

Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C.

8.   It is further contended by him on behalf of the

appellants  that  they  have  been  summoned  on  the

complaint instituted by the State Public Prosecutor on

behalf of the second respondent on the basis of the

previous  sanction  order  accorded  by  the  State

Government  under  Section  199(4)  of  the  Cr.P.C.  for

prosecuting the individual electronic and print media

involved  in  the  case  on  hand  and  not  for  the

prosecution  of  any  named  individual  in  the  said

sanction order and therefore, there is no application

of  mind  on  the  part  of  the  State  Government  while

according the previous sanction orders in favour of the

Page 10

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               10

second  respondent  to  initiate  criminal  proceedings

under the said provisions referred to supra against the

appellants herein.  

9. It  is  further  contended  on  behalf  of  the

appellants that the High Court has erred in dismissing

the  criminal  petitions  of  the  appellants  and  not

quashing the criminal proceedings against the orders of

summons passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge after taking cognizance of the complaints filed

by the public prosecutor against the appellants, which

are not maintainable in law. It is contended by him

that  the  High  Court  has  also  not  considered  the

relevant  fact  that  telecasting  the  story  by  the

appellant is not in connection with discharge of public

functions  of  the  second  respondent  being  a  public

servant  and  this  aspect  of  the  matter  has  not  been

dealt with by the High Court thereby, it has rendered

the findings as erroneous in law and therefore, the

same are liable to be set aside.

Page 11

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               11

10. Further,  it  is  contended  by  him  that  the  High

Court  has  failed  to  take  into  consideration  an

important  aspect  of  the  matter  namely,  the  State

Government while examining the representation submitted

by  the  second  respondent  for  according  previous

sanction  as  required  under  Section  199(4)  of  the

Cr.P.C. and All India Services (Conduct) Rules of 1968,

in his favour authorising the State Public Prosecutor

to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellants

does not reflect application of mind on the part of the

State  Government  as  they  have  failed  to  find  out

whether or not the comments made against the second

respondent by the individual electronic and print media

have got content which are defamatory, scandalous or

libellous  and  whether  the  same  warrant  the  State

Government  to  permit  such  institution  of  criminal

proceedings against the appellants under Chapter XXI of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, it is contended

that the above explained reasons would show lack of

application of mind on the part of the State Government

Page 12

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               12

to  the  facts  presented  to  it  and  therefore,  the

impugned sanction order accorded by it in favour of the

second  respondent  to  initiate  criminal  proceedings

against the appellants under the provisions of Cr.P.C.

referred to supra is vitiated in law and is liable to

be set aside.

11.   Further, it is contended by the learned senior

counsel that the High Court has also failed to take

into  consideration  another  relevant  fact  that  the

criminal  complaints  instituted  by  respondent  No.

1-State  Government  against  the  appellants,  is  silent

about their role in committing the alleged offence of

telecasting/publishing comments and allegations against

the second respondent which are allegedly defamatory,

libellous and scandalous.  

12.  It is also contended on behalf of the appellants

that the High Court has failed to appreciate that to

arraign the appellants as the accused, the complainant

ought to have made positive averments against them in

the complaints and attributed a specific role to each

Page 13

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               13

one  of  them  in  committing  the  alleged  offence,

warranting initiation of criminal proceedings, the same

has  not  been  done,  therefore,  the  summoning  order

issued  by  the  Metropolitan  Sessions  Judge  and  the

complaints filed against the appellants by the State

Public Prosecutor are not sustainable in law and are

liable to be quashed. The learned senior counsel in

support of his contentions has placed reliance upon the

following judgments of this Court in the cases of Gour

Chandra Rout & Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor, Cuttack1, P.C.  Joshi  &  Anr.  v.  The State  of  Uttar  Pradesh2,

Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat3  and

Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh4.

13. Further,  the  learned  senior  counsel  placing

reliance upon Section 196(2) of Cr.P.C. contended that

a specific sanction order is required to prosecute in

respect of each person to initiate criminal proceedings

under Section 120-B of I.P.C., the same has not been 1 AIR 1963 SC 1198     2 AIR 1961 SC 387 3 (1997) 7 SCC 622 4 (2013) 15 SCC 624/ 2013  SCALE 513

Page 14

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               14

obtained by the second respondent. In support of this

contention he placed reliance upon the judgment of this

Court in the case of Madan Lal v. The State of Punjab5.

14. Mr.  Aruneshwar  Gupta,  the  learned  counsel

appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.

854 and 858 of 2012, reiterated the aforesaid legal

submissions made by Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, the learned

senior counsel on behalf of the appellants referred to

supra.  It  is  further  contended  by  him  in  Criminal

Appeal No. 854 of 2012 that it is evident from the

notice  dated  13.8.2007  that  the  sanction  for  the

prosecution  was  sought  against  the  Editor,  News

Reporter and Printer and Publisher of Rajasthan Patrika

newspaper, however, no sanction was sought against the

Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 854 of

2012 who are the Editor in Chief, Advisor and printer

and publisher of the said newspaper. After perusal of

all the documents and material on record, the State

Government granted sanction only against the Editor of

Rajasthan Patrika Newspaper (the appellant in Criminal 5 AIR 1967 SC 1590

Page 15

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               15

Appeal No. 858 of 2012) by its order dated 27.10.2007,

after proper application of mind. The application for

grant of sanction against appellant Nos.1-3 who are the

Editor in Chief, Advisor and Printer and Publisher was

specifically  rejected  by  the  State  Government,

therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against

them is not valid in law.  

15. It  is  further  contended  by  him  that  since  the

respondents have not challenged the sanction accorded

by the State Government dated 27.10.2007, authorising

the  criminal  proceedings  against  the  Editor  and

rejecting  grant  of  sanction  order  against  appellant

Nos.1-3 in Crl. Appeal No.854 of 2012, the same has

become final, therefore, the public prosecutor has no

authority to file any criminal complaint against the

appellants in Criminal Appeal No.854 of 2012 who are

the Editor-in-Chief, Advisor and Printer and Publisher

of Rajasthan Patrika. He contended that what cannot be

derived directly cannot be obtained indirectly by the

process  of  court  proceedings.  He  further  placed

Page 16

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               16

reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of

Jagir  Singh  v.  Ranbir  Singh  and  Anr.6,  contending

that in the absence of sanction to prosecute a named

person, the public prosecutor cannot file a complaint

and the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to judicially

review  the  sanction  order  and  issue  summons  against

those persons whose name do not specifically appear as

accused in the order of sanction accorded by the State

Government. It is further contended that this aspect of

the matter has not at all been considered by the High

Court even though the legal submission was made in this

regard before it.  

16. Both  the  learned  counsel  on  behalf  of  the

appellants  contended  that  there  must  be  valid  and

cogent  material  before  the  State  Government  for

according  previous  sanction  in  favour  of  the  second

respondent  permitting  him  to  initiate  criminal

proceedings against the appellants. It is contended by

them that the State Government should have examined the

6 AIR 1979 SC 381

Page 17

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               17

facts, allegations and names of the accused and then

should  have  reasonably  applied  its  mind  to  conclude

whether or not the reputation of the second respondent

while  discharging  his  public  function  as  a  public

servant  was  intended  to  be  harmed.  Only  after  such

reasonable application of mind by the State Government

to  the  facts  placed  before  it,  the  sanction  can  be

accorded by it in favour of the second respondent to

initiate criminal proceedings and only then the court

of sessions shall take cognizance of such offence in

the  criminal  proceedings  initiated  against  the

appellants.  This  aspect  of  the  matter  has  not  been

considered by the learned Judge of the High Court while

passing the impugned Judgment. Therefore, the impugned

judgment and order is vitiated in law and liable to be

set aside.  

17. It  is  further  urged  by  the  learned  counsel  on

behalf  of  the  appellants  that  the  High  Court  has

erroneously held that under the scheme of Section 199

of  the  Cr.P.C.,  the  previous  sanction  is  required

Page 18

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               18

against all such persons who have allegedly committed

the  offence  and  not  necessarily  against  specific

individuals in order to prosecute them for the offences

committed against a person in respect of his conduct in

the discharge of his public functions who at that time

was a public servant employed in connection with the

affairs  of  the  Union  or  State.  Therefore,  it  is

contended  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  in  Criminal

Appeal No. 858 of 2012 that the criminal proceedings

initiated  by  the  first  respondent  on  behalf  of  the

second  respondent  should  have  been  confined  to  only

against those persons named in the Government sanction

order for the offences referred to supra.

18.  Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, the learned counsel for the

appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.854 and 858 of 2012

further  contended  that  several  investigations  were

carried out pursuant to the orders passed by this Court

in the Sohrabuddin case and on 12.5.2007, a report was

submitted  by  Ms.  Johri  which  finds  reference  in

judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Rubabbuddin

Page 19

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               19

Sheikh  v. State of Gujarat and Ors.7. The fact of the

investigation by the CBI in Sohrabuddin’s case was in

public domain and if that is published in the print

media by the appellant (in Crl. A. Nos. 854 & 858 of

2012),  the  same  cannot  be  made  the  basis  of  any

defamation as it has referred to the judgment in the

aforesaid case which is a public record.

19. It is also further contended by him that Rajasthan

Patrika is a subscriber of United News of India (UNI)

which is one of the largest News Agencies in India,

providing news to several news papers in India. The UNI

published and broadcast the news item dated 12.05.2007

and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.  858 of 2012,

being  the  Editor  of  Rajasthan  Patrika  got  the  same

translated  in  Hindi  and  published  it  in  their  news

paper  which  is  allegedly  defamatory  to  the  second

respondent. It is further contended by him that United

News of India is the source and first broadcaster of

the  alleged  defamatory  news  to  its  subscribers

7  2010 (2 )  SCC 200

Page 20

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               20

including the newspaper for which the appellant is the

Editor,  who  acted  and  published  in  bona  fide  the

alleged  offending  news  believing  it  to  be  true  and

correct. Therefore, in the absence of any prosecution

of  UNI,  the  appellant  cannot  be  prosecuted  for  the

offence of defamation as the same is covered under the

Explanation 3 of Section 499 of I.P.C.  

20. It is further contended that freedom of expression

demands  that  criminal  defamation  in  relation  to

publication  of  news  items  and  articles  may  not  be

invoked in all the cases but should be limited to only

exceptional cases to redress the immediate harm done to

the reputation of the individuals who have been defamed

and shall not be allowed to be used as remedy to serve

the ulterior goal as the same will have a negative and

damaging effect on the freedom of expression guaranteed

to the press.

21. It is further contended by him that Section 499 of

I.P.C. defines the offence of defamation as spoken or

written,  Section  501  of  I.P.C.  is  for  defamatory

Page 21

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               21

printing or engraving of defamatory matter and Section

502  of  I.P.C.  is  for  sale  of  printed  or  engraved

substances  containing  defamatory  material.  Therefore,

Section  499  of  I.P.C.  would  cover  the  Editor  while

Section 501 will cover the Publisher and Printer and

Section  502  of  I.P.C.  covers  the  seller.  As  the

offences mentioned under Sections 501 and 502 of I.P.C.

are  specifically  distinct  offences  which  are  against

the Publisher and the Seller, therefore, the previous

sanction  order  was  granted  in  favour  of  the  second

respondent  against  the  Editor  of  the  Newspapers  and

rejected against the Printer and Publisher. Therefore,

in these appeals, the appellants cannot be tried for

the offences under Section 499, 501, 502 of I.P.C. with

the aid of Section 120-B of I.P.C. as the liability of

defamation is only limited to the Editor.

22.  In Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2012, Mr. Abhimanue

Shrestha,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for

appellant-Mr.  Lateef  Mohd.  Khan,  General  Secretary,

Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee, who has allegedly

Page 22

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               22

made certain false and baseless statements against the

second  respondent  under  the  news  item  “Rajiv

Trivedi-Hyderabad Ka Vanjara” “Fauri Bharkhast Karne Ka

Mutalika” published on 8.5.2007 in Siyasat Urdu Daily,

contended that the appellant is neither the Publisher

nor the Seller of the said Urdu Daily, therefore, one

would believe that he made such statements on the basis

of the information through electronic and print media.

It is therefore, contended that in view of the nature

of the allegations against the second respondent, the

appellant who is the Secretary of the Civil Liberties

Monitoring  Committee  made  the  above  statements

published  in  Siyasat  Urdu  Daily  to  make  the  public

aware  of  the  same.  The  alleged  offences  are  not

attracted  against  him  as  the  allegations  in  the

complaint do not constitute any of the offences under

Sections 500, 501, 502 and 120-B of I.P.C. The learned

counsel  questioned  the  legality  and  validity  of

previous sanction accorded by the State Government in

favour  of  the  second  respondent  to  prosecute  the

Page 23

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               23

appellant in the said appeal by placing reliance on the

decisions of this Court in the cases of Kartar Singh &

Ors. v. The State of Punjab8 and R. Rajagopal & Anr. v.

State of T.N. & Ors.9

23. On the other hand, Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, the

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State

has sought to justify the sanction order authorising

the Public Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings

against the appellants herein, the same was accorded

after  applying  its  mind  to  the  facts  stated  in  the

representation given by the second respondent that the

statements telecast and published in the electronic and

print  media  by  the  appellants  were  defamatory  and

affected his reputation and the same were in connection

with the discharge of his public functions as an IPS

Officer. The State Government after applying its mind

was  satisfied  that  the  reputation  of  the  second

respondent was harmed by printing and telecasting the

defamatory  statements  by  the  appellants  herein.

8  AIR 1956 SC 541 : 1956 SCR 476 9 (1994) 6 SCC  632

Page 24

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               24

Therefore, it accorded the sanction order under Section

199(4) of Cr.P.C. in favour of the second respondent to

initiate  criminal  proceedings  against  the  appellant,

which provision does not speak of mentioning the names

against  whom  the  criminal  prosecution  has  to  be

instituted by the State Public Prosecutor.   

24. He  has  further  contended  that  the  learned

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after applying

his mind with regard to the allegations made against

the appellants took cognizance of the matter and issued

order of summons to the appellants to appear before the

sessions  court  with  their  respective  counter  to  the

criminal proceedings initiated against them. The same

was  stalled  by  the  appellants  herein  by  initiating

proceedings before the High Court and this Court. It is

contended by him that the challenge before the High

Court has been rightly rejected after dealing with each

one  of  the  rival  legal  contentions  urged  in  the

Criminal Petitions filed by the appellants, which do

not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of

Page 25

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               25

its  appellate  jurisdiction,  as  the  appellants  are

required to face the trial in the proceedings initiated

against them by respondent No. 1- the State Government.

25. Mr.  Pappu  Nageshwar  Rao,  the  learned  counsel

appearing for the second respondent, sought to justify

the  sanction  accorded  in  favour  of  the  second

respondent by drawing our attention to the provisions

of  Sections  132,  188,  196,  197,  199  of  Cr.P.C.  He

sought to distinguish  previous sanction provided under

Section 194 and placed reliance upon the judgments of

various High Courts in the cases of  Master Girdhari

Lal, Printer & Publisher of Naya Bharat v. The State10,

Pachhalloor Noohu  v. Public Prosecutor11, Sant Lal  v.

Krishan  Lal12 and  B. Basavalingappa  and  Anr.  v.  V.

Narasimhan13 in support of the proposition of law that

previous sanction order by the State Government can be

granted  under  Section  198B  (3)(a)of  the  Code  of

Criminal  Procedure,  1898,  by  any  Secretary  or

10 1969 CriLJ P&H 1318 11 1975 CriLJ Kerala 1304 12 1976 CriLJ Delhi 215 13  1974 CriLJ Karnataka 66

Page 26

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               26

authorisation of the Government in favour of a public

servant  to  prosecute  the  persons  who  have  committed

offences of defamation against him. He further placed

reliance upon Section 308 proviso 2 and Section 473 of

Cr.P.C.,  regarding  the  limitation  for  sanction  and

Section 484 of Cr.P.C. regarding sanction saving clause

to  justify  that  the  sanction  accorded  by  the  State

Government  to  prosecute  the  appellants  herein  is

perfectly legal and valid. He therefore urged that in

view of the above, the sanction accorded by the State

Government  in  favour  of  second  respondent  cannot  be

found  fault  with  by  the  appellants  and  prayed  for

dismissal of these appeals.

26. We have heard the rival legal contentions urged on

behalf  of  learned  counsel  for  both  the  parties  and

answer the same by assigning the following reasons.

    With regard to the contention urged by learned

senior counsel Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar on behalf of the

appellants  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.857  of  2012  and

connected  appeals  that  the  High  Court  has  not

Page 27

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               27

considered  all  the  issues  raised  before  it  in  the

criminal petitions filed by the appellants seeking for

quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against

them, is wholly untenable in law for the reason that

from perusal of the impugned order of the High Court,

it is clear that the sanction was accorded by the State

Government  under  the  relevant  Government  order  in

favour  of  the  second  respondent.  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

Page 28

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               28

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.

Page 29

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               29

27. Further,  the  reliance  placed  by  the  learned

counsel on behalf of the appellants upon the judgments

of  this  Court  referred  to  supra  while  according

sanction in favour of the second respondent to initiate

the  criminal  proceedings  against  the  appellants  the

State  Government  has  not  applied  its  mind,  this

contention  is  also  wholly  untenable  in  law  as  the

exercise of power by the State Government under Section

199 of Cr.P.C. is in the administrative and ministerial

capacity and according of such sanction is as per the

subjective  satisfaction  on  the  part  of  the  State

Government. 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

Page 30

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               30

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.  

28. 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

Page 31

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               31

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

Page 32

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               32

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.

29. Further, the contention urged by the appellants’

counsel placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgements

that the act of the second respondent allegedly aiding

the  Gujarat  Police  Officers  to  facilitate  taking

Sohrabuddin from Bidar to Ahmedabad, has nothing to do

with the discharge of his public functions, hence, the

said statement in the news item allegedly defaming the

second  respondent  being  telecast  and  published  in

electronic and print media do not attract Section 199

of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the

appellants  that  the  sanction  accorded  by  the  State

Government is beyond its jurisdiction as the said act

of aiding the Gujarat Police is an independent act and

it  is  not  in  relation  to  the  discharge  of  public

Page 33

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               33

functions of the second respondent though he, at that

relevant  point  of  time,  was  discharging  his  public

functions. This contention on behalf of the appellants

is also wholly untenable in law, for the reason that

determining the question on whether or not the second

respondent  while  aiding  the  Gujarat  Police  at  that

point  of  time  was  in  the  capacity  of  his  official

discharge of his public functions or otherwise, is to

be  determined  by  regular  trial  after  examining  the

facts, circumstances and evidence on record.

30. The  reliance  placed  upon  the  judgment  of  this

Court  in  the  case  of  Rubabbuddin  Sheikh  (supra),

contending that the fact of the investigation by the

CBI in Sohrabuddin’s case was the subject matter before

this  Court  at  para  2  of  the  judgment  in  the  case

referred to supra, therefore, by publishing the same in

the newspaper by the appellants (in Crl. A. Nos. 854 &

858 of 2012) cannot be made the basis of any defamation

as the said news item was published after referring to

the aforesaid judgment which is a public record. This

Page 34

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               34

contention urged on behalf of the appellants is wholly

untenable in law for the reason that at para 2 of the

said judgment of this Court in the above referred case

is only with regard to the facts of that case, whereas,

the allegations made against the appellants herein are

for  publishing  and  telecasting  defamatory  statements

against the second respondent, which question of fact

has to be examined, considered and answered only after

regular trial proceedings before the learned Additional

Metropolitan  Sessions  Judge.  Therefore,  the  above

contention urged in this regard is wholly untenable and

the same is rejected.

31. Further,  the  learned  counsel  in  Criminal  Appeal

Nos.  854  and  858  of  2012,  placed  reliance  upon  the

judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Urmila  Devi

(supra), in support of the proposition of law that only

the Editor-In-Chief is responsible for the telecast or

publication  of  the  alleged  defamatory  statements

against whom the sanction order is accorded and that

there  is  no  sanction  order  accorded  to  initiate

Page 35

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               35

prosecution against others. Further, the contention on

behalf of the appellants that there must be specific

mention of persons in the sanction order against whom

prosecution can be launched and in the absence of the

same, a single sanction order accorded by the State

Government  against  all  the  other  appellants  in  the

connected  appeals  amounts  to  giving  a  wider

interpretation of the provision under Section 199(4) of

Cr.P.C.,  which  is  not  the  object  of  the  aforesaid

provision under the Cr.P.C. This aspect of the matter

has not been examined by the High Court; therefore,

impugned order is vitiated in law and is contrary to

the provisions of Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C.

32. 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

Page 36

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               36

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.

33. The contention urged by the learned counsel Mr.

Abhimanue  Shrestha  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  in

Criminal Appeal No.851 of 2012 is also untenable in law

for the reasons stated that the appellant has made a

statement  on  the  basis  of  the  news  items

telecast/published in electronic and print media. The

same cannot be accepted by us for the reason that it is

a matter that has to be examined by the trial court

after recording the findings of fact on the basis of

valid and cogent evidence to be adduced by the State

Public  Prosecutor  on  behalf  of  the  respondent.

Therefore, there is no substance in the said contention

Page 37

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               37

urged  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  and  the  same  is

rejected.

34. The  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

second  respondent  rightly  sought  to  justify  the

findings and reasons of the High Court in its impugned

judgment, placing reliance on Sections 132, 188, 196,

197 and 199 of Cr.P.C., inter alia contending that for

prosecution of an accused in the case of defamation of

a public servant, sanction can be accorded under the

old Section 198B(3b) of Cr.P.C.,1898, by any Secretary

or authorisation by the Government. He has also placed

reliance upon Section 2U of Cr.P.C. which defines a

Public Prosecutor as any person appointed under Section

24 and included any person acting under the directions

of a Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel on behalf

of the second respondent has rightly justified that the

sanction accorded by the State Government to prosecute

the appellants is perfectly legal and valid by placing

reliance  on  Section  308  proviso  2,  Section  473  of

Cr.P.C.  regarding  the  limitation  for  sanction  and

Page 38

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               38

Section 484 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has also

rightly placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases

of  Master Girdhari Lal, Printer & Publisher of Naya

Bharat  v.  The  State,  Pachhalloor  Noohu  v. Public

Prosecutor  and  Sant  Lal  v.  Krishan  Lal  and  B.

Basavalingappa and Anr.  v. Narasimhan  all referred to

supra. Therefore, the submission made by him is well

founded and the same must be accepted.  

35. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants by

placing  reliance  on  Articles  19  and  21  of  the

Constitution of India contended that the initiation and

continuance of the criminal proceedings in the present

cases hinder and hamper the very freedom of press which

is  most  precious  and  constitute  an  affront  to  the

aforesaid provisions under the Constitution of India.

The said contention has been rightly rebutted by the

learned  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  by

strongly urging that the reputation of an individual is

also equally important and that the said aspect of the

matter  must  be  considered  after  adducing  cogent  and

Page 39

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               39

valid  evidence  on  record  by  the  Public  Prosecutor

before  the  learned  trial  Judge  who  shall  then

appreciate the same and record his findings on merits

of the case.  

36. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the

opinion that the impugned 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

Page 40

 Crl. A. No. 857 of 2012                               40

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.

                              ………………………………………………………J.                         [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

                           ………………………………………………………J.                              [C. NAGAPPAN]

New Delhi; May 14, 2015