JUDGMENT M. Murtaza Husain, J. 1. THROUGH his order dated 25-7-74, passed in Criminal Revision No. 110 of 1973, the 1st Addl. District Judge, Faizabad has made this reference with the recommendation that the order dated 23-8- 73 passed by Sri A. U. Khan, Magistrate 1st class, Faizabad in complaint Case No. 387 of 1971, Mohammad Hashim Ansari v. Kazi Jalil Abbasi, summoning the revisionist to stand his trial under Section 500 IPC be quashed. 2. THE facts of the case, giving rise to this reference, are that on 22-10- 1971 Mohd. Hashim Ansari, opposite party filed a complaint before the ADM (J), Faizabad against Kazi Jalil Abbasi revisionist and six others alleging that an offence under Section 500 was committed by them. It was mentioned in the complaint that on 2-1-71 a public meeting was held in the city of Gorakhpur under the auspices of All India Bangla Desh National Integration Convention That meeting was addressed by the revisionist and several others. THE revisionist was then a Minister of State in the U. P. Government. During his speech he had allegedly remarked that the Indian Muslims were traitors and that they used to look at Indian problems through Pakistani spectacles. That speech was published in an Urdu weekly of Varanasi named Tanveer. THE complainant, who was a resident of Ajodhya in the district of Faizabed, read with that news item on 18-10-71 and considered it to be defamatory for himself and other Muslims. He then filed a complaint before the ADM (J) against the revisionist and six others. Evidence under Section 200 and Section 202 CrPC was recorded by the learned ADM (J) and then the case was transferred to the tile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Akbarpur at Faizabad who passed the impugned order. Through that order he summoned only the revisionist to stand his trial under Section 500 IPC and discharged others named in the complaint. THE revisionist then filed Griminal Revision No 110 of 1973 before the District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad. It was heard by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad who has made this reference. In his view the impugned speech was made by the revisionist while discharging his duty as a public servant and, therefore, cognizance of the alleged offence could not be taken without local Governments' sanction under Section 197 (1) CrPC. It was heard by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad who has made this reference. In his view the impugned speech was made by the revisionist while discharging his duty as a public servant and, therefore, cognizance of the alleged offence could not be taken without local Governments' sanction under Section 197 (1) CrPC. It has also been held by the learned Ist Addl. District and Sessions Judge that the Magisterial Court at Faizabad could not take cognizance of the complaint because the alleged defamatory utterances were made at Gorakhpur. Lastly he held that the learned ADM (J) was legally not justified in transferring the case to the file of any other Magistrate after recording evidence under Section 200 and Section 202 CrPC. THE Magistrate concerned has submitted a lengthy explanation dated 25-7-74 justifying the impugned order passed by him. No body turned up on behalf of the complainant when 1 heard this reference case, though the revisionist was duly represented. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the material on record through his assistance as well as the assistance of the Government Advocate. 3. THE first ground on which the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge has recommended quashing of the impugned order passed by the Magistrate concerned is that the revisionist being a Minister of State in the U. P. Cabinet, at the time when he made the impugned speech, cognizance of the alleged offence could not be taken against him without Government's sanction as contemplated by Sec. 197(1) CrPC. THE object of that section is to guard against vexatious prosecution of public servants. Though it cannot be disputed that in his capacity as a Minister the revisionist was a public servant when he is said to have made the impugned utterances, but in order to claim the protection afforded by Section 197 (1) CrPC the accused has not only to show that he was a public servant as contemplated by that section but it has also to be shown that the offence complained of was committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. THE allegations of the complaint, as well as the evidence recorded by the ADM (J) u/Sec. 200 and Sec. 202 CrPC do not indicate that the alleged meeting was attended by the revisionist in his capacity as a Minister of U. P. Government, or that he had called the Muslims of India to be traitors as they looked at Indian problems with Pakistani spectacles while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. THE Convention wherein the impugned speech was made by the revisionist was a public function organised by the citizens of Gorakhpur. Members of Parliament and State legislature, other prominent citizens, and, politicians had participated in the meeting of that convention. THEre is nothing on record to show that it was a convention held by the Government, or that the revisionist attended it only by virtue of his office as a Minister of the State and not in his individual capacity. Nor there is anything on record to show that revisionist's visit to Gorakhpur when he made the impugned utterances was his official visit. It can, therefore, not be said at present that the alleged utterances were made by the revisionist at a time when he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. 4. IT has been held in Matajog Dubey v. H. C. Bhari, AIR 1958 SC 44 that: "IT is not always necessary that the need for sanction under Section 197 is to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations therein contained. The question may arise at any stage of the proceedings. The complaint may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purpoted to be done in the discharge of official duty : but facts subsequently coming to light on a police or judicial inquiry or even in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may establish the necessity for sanction. Whether sanction Is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. Whether sanction Is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The necessity may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case." IT is quite possible that at subsequent stages of the present case also it may come to the notice of the Court that whatever the revisionist said or did, was said or done by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The complaint may then be thrown away for want of the required sanction. At present there is nothing on record to show that the revisionist committed the alleged offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, so as to entail summary dismissal of the complaint for want of required sanction. Learned counsel for revisionist relied upon the case of B. Basaval Lingappa v. V. Naratimhan, 1974 CrLJ 66 wherein during the course of his official visit to a village the Minister for Municipal Administration had spoken of a shocking health hazard in Jalahalli west area villages. He stated about garbage from the Air Force mess, meant for pigs, being sold to the villagers and asserted that they were suffering from various diseases due to its consumption. A complaint was filed against him under Section 500 IPC alleging that the aforesaid utterance made by him were defamatory. It was held on the fact of that case that though the statement allegedly made by the Minister fell outside his protfolio yet it was made by him only while acting in the discharge of his official duty. On that account it was laid down that the complaint was barred by Section 197 CrPC. 5. THE observations made in that authority cannot help the revisionist because there is nothing on the record to show that the meeting concerned was attended by the revisionist only as a Minister of State Government, and not in individual capacity, and that whatever he stated in the impugned speech was uttered by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. When those facts are established at the trial the observations in the authority aforesaid will help the revisionist but they cannot be of any avail to him at the present stage. When those facts are established at the trial the observations in the authority aforesaid will help the revisionist but they cannot be of any avail to him at the present stage. THE mere fact that while making the defamatory statement the revisionist happened to be a Minister of the State Government will not automatically attract the protection afforded by Section 197 (1) CrPC unles there is anything on record to show that he made the alleged utterances in the discharge of his official duty. 6. IN Namdeo Kasbinath Aher v. H. G. Vartak, AIR 1970 Bom. 385 a Minister of Bombay Government had gone to perform the opening ceremony of a milk powder distributing Centre at Kalyan at the instance of local Rotary Club. After he declared it open and proceeded to make a speech the complainant stood up and showed him a sample of Mexican wheat distributed to ration card holders of Kalyan. Showing that wheat to the Minister the complainant asked if such wheat which was mixed with DDT powder, was fit for human consumption. On this question being asked the Minister got angry and called the complainant a Goonda. IN the complaint filed by the complainant a plea about its non mainta- inability for want of sanction under Section 197 (1) CrPC was raised, but it was rejected by their Lordships of Bombay High Court with the observation that: "It was no part of the official duty of any public servant to call any body a goonda. Even assuming that the Minister merely exceeded the limits of official duty, the excess was so blatant as to lose the colour of office and also the protection available under Section 197 CrPC." It is clear from the above noted observation that the mere fact that the revisionist was a Minister of the State Government at the time when he made the impugned speech, cannot make him immune from being prosecuted for an offence committed by him unless, of course, it is proved that the said offence was committed while acting in the discharge of his official duty. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the material hitherto available on the record of the present case, does not indicate that the revisionist made the alleged defamatory utterances while acting or purpoting to act in the discharge of his official duty. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the material hitherto available on the record of the present case, does not indicate that the revisionist made the alleged defamatory utterances while acting or purpoting to act in the discharge of his official duty. That being so, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in smmoning the revisionist to stand his trial under Section 500 IPC It is open to the revisionist to plead the bar of Section 197 (1) CrPC before the Magistrate concerned and to produce material to show that he had attended the meeting of the convention as Minister of State Government and he had made the alleged defamatory utterances acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Whenever material to that effect is produced before the trial court during the trial off the case, it will be open to that Court too dismiss the complainant's complaint for want of requisite sanction. At present: there is nothing on record to justify interference by this Court with the proceedings of the case in question. The other two points on which the learned 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge has made this reference have no legs to stand upon The alleged defamatory speech of the revisionist was published in a newspaper. There is evidence on record to show that that newspaper was received by the complainant and was read by him and others at Ajodhya in the district of Faizabad. Tha jurisdiction to take cognizance of a defamatory statement published in :a newspaper vests in the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the publication of the defamatory matter took place. When the defamatory statement is published in a newspaper it is sufficient to prove far the purposes of jurisdiction, that the paper was delivered within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. There is sufficient material on record to that effect. 7. SIMILARLY the transfer of the case by the ADM (J) to the Court of another competent Magistrate after recording evidence under Section 200 or Section 202 CrPC cannot be said no amount to any illegality because under Section 192 (1) CrPC every ADM (J) was competent to make over any case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him after having taken cognizance of the offence. It was not at all necessary for the ADM (J), who had recorded evidence under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, to himself summon or discharge the accused. If he made over the case to another competent Magistrate subordinate to brim after recording that evidence he committed no illegality. 8. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad was not justified in making this reference with the recommendation for quashing the order dated 23-8-73 passed by Sri A. U. Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, Faizabad. The reference made by him is consequently rejected. The record of the case is sent back to the Magistrate concerned to proceed to decide it in accordance with law. It has already been remarked above that it is open to the revisionist to plead the bar of Section 197 (1) CrPC before the learned Magistrate and to produce before him material in support of that plea. The case having already become too old the office will send the record to the Magistrate concerned as early as possible. Reference rejected.