Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1959 DIGILAW 6 (HP)

Sansar Chand v. Union of India

1959-05-29

T.RAMABHADRAN

body1959
ORDER :- In this revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Chamba rejecting certain contentions put forward by the petitioner, three points were urged by learned counsel. I shall deal with them, seriatim. 2. (A) In the first place, Mr. Prithvi Raj contended that the sanction, Ex. P. S., accorded by the Lieutenant-Governor, Himachal Pradesh, under S. 198-B(3)(c), Cr. P.C., was invalid, since, in his view, after 01-11-1956, Himachal Pradesh became an Union Territory and the Lieutenant-Governor as Administrator, did not have the powers of a State Government. This point has been carefully considered by the learned Sessions Judge. On a careful perusal of Notification No. SCO 2536 dated 01-11-1956 and the previous Notification No. 2/1/56-Judl. II dated 15-02-1956, the conclusion is irresistible that under S. 198-B(3)(c), even after 01-11-1956, the Lieutenant-Governor was competent to accord sanction to the prosecution of the petitioner under S. 500, S.501 and S. 502, I.P.C. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that Notification No. S.R.O. 2536 of 01-11-1956 should have made a distinct mention of power to accord sanction under S. 198-B(3)(c). It should be borne in mind that Notification No. 2/1/56-Judl. II dated 15-02-1956 specifically authorized the Lieutenant-Governor to discharge the functions of the Central Government under S. 198-B (3), Criminal Procedure Code, in case of public servants serving in Himachal Pradesh. 2a. (B) In the second place, it was suggested that the sanction was defective, as it did not authorise the Public Prosecutor, in so many words, to file the complaint against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it would have been proper to mention in the sanction, Ex. P. S., that the Public Prosecutor, Chamba, had been authorised to file the complaint. An affidavit, however, was filed by the Public Prosecutor Chamba, in the Court of the Sessions Judge to the effect that he had been instructed to file the complaint. It does not stand to reason [hat the Public Prosecutor would file such complaints without due authority. In my opinion, it is not essential that the sanction should contain a recital to the effect that the Public Prosecutor had been authorised to file the complaint. It would be sufficient if in the body of the complaint the Public Prosecutor mentioned that he had been instructed by the Lieutenant-Governor to file the complaint. In my opinion, it is not essential that the sanction should contain a recital to the effect that the Public Prosecutor had been authorised to file the complaint. It would be sufficient if in the body of the complaint the Public Prosecutor mentioned that he had been instructed by the Lieutenant-Governor to file the complaint. In the presence of the affidavit filed by the Public Prosecutor (which, obviously, had not been rebutted), I find no force in this contention. 3. (C) In the third place, it was urged that thei complaint was defective, as it did not bear the signature of Shri T.S. Negi former Deputy Commissioner and Settlement Officer, Chamba, against whom the offence of defamation was alleged to have been committed. Mr. Prithvi Raj argued that under S. 198-B(13), Cr. P.C., read with S. 198 thereof, it was incumbent upon Mr. Negi to sign the complaint before it was filed in Court. Reliance was placed upon Shankar v. State, AIR 1959 Kerala 100, where one of the two learned Judges, forming the Division Bench, observed that : "On a proper construction of Sub-S. (13) of S. 198-B, a complaint by the person aggrieved is not dispensed with even with regard to cases falling under that section and a prosecution must fail for want of such a. complaint, where the complaint is solely by the Public Prosecutor, and the victim of offence has made no complaint." A contrary view was, however, taken by the other learned Judge, who expressed himself in the following terms : "Sub-Section (13) of S. 198-B does not lead to the conclusion that the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, should also be a party in a complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor under S. 198-B. The object of Sub-S. (13) of S. 198-B is only to preserve the rights of the person, against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to directly approach, if he so chooses, the proper Court by himself making a complaint under S. 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code." 4. With due respect, I agree with Vaidialingam, J., that reading the two sections together, when a complaint, in writing, is made by the Public Prosecutor under S.198-B. It is not necessary that the public servant defamed should also sign it. Consequently, this contention also fails. 5. No other point was urged. 6. With due respect, I agree with Vaidialingam, J., that reading the two sections together, when a complaint, in writing, is made by the Public Prosecutor under S.198-B. It is not necessary that the public servant defamed should also sign it. Consequently, this contention also fails. 5. No other point was urged. 6. ORDER :- The revision petition is accordingly rejected. Revision rejected.