J. U. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-original complainant has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 16-4-1991 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Nadiad in Criminal case No. 1551/1986 below application exh. 84 submitted on behalf of accused no. 2. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a complaint being Cri. Case No. 1551/86 under Section 500 of the I. P. Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Press Registration of Books Act, 1867, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial magistrate at Nadiad against respondent nos. 1 and 2 for publishing defamatory statements in "viharika Weekly" published from Nadiad by accused No. 1 at the instance of accused No. 2. The court took the cognizance of the case and summons were issued on the accused for the offence under Section 500 of the i. P. Code. The plea of the accused were recorded and the complainant and his witnesses were examined. The matter was thereafter adjourned for examination of defence witnesses for number of limes. Accused, thereafter, filed pursis Exhs. 54 and 55 on 21-1-1988 saying that they do not want to examine defence witnesses. The matter was, therefore, adjourned. Thereafter on 12-12-1990, accused No. 2 gave an application Exh. 84 to the effect that the petitioner- complainant is a government servant and therefore, sanction is required to be obtained by the petitioner to file a complaint against the accused as per the provisions of section 199 of the Cr. P. Code and the complainant having not obtained such sanction, the complaint be dismissed and the accused be acquitted. After hearing the parties the learned Magistrate passed the order on 16-4-1991 dismissing the complaint by allowing the application Exh. 84. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 16-4-1991 passed below application Exh. 84, the present petitioner has approached this Court. ( 3 ) MR. Amit Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Trial Court has erred in appreciating and interpreting the provisions of Section 199 of the Cr. P. Code. It is contenced by Mr. Shah that the learned Magistrate over-looked sub-Section (6) of S. 199 of Cr. ( 3 ) MR. Amit Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Trial Court has erred in appreciating and interpreting the provisions of Section 199 of the Cr. P. Code. It is contenced by Mr. Shah that the learned Magistrate over-looked sub-Section (6) of S. 199 of Cr. P. Code while allowing application of accused No. 2 and, therefore, the Trial Court has, prinia facie, committed an error of law on the face of the record. Mr. Dave, learned Addi. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and mr. G. D. Bhatt and Mr. Tanvin Ansari, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents-accused vehemently supported the judgment and order of the trial Court. Section 199 of the Cr. P. Code reads as under:"section 199 (1): No Court shall take congnizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence: provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint or a woman who according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be complied to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his of her behalf. (2) 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. (3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2), shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. (4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction- (a) of the State Government in the case of a person who is or has been the governor of that State or a Minister of that Government; (b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State; (c) of the Central Government in any other case. (5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint. " ( 4 ) IT is apparent that while deciding application filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, the trial court has over-looked sub-sec. (6) of Section 199 of Cr. P. Code. If we read sub-sec. (6) of Section 199 of Cr. P. Code, it becomes clear that if a public servant is defamed in respect of his conduct in the discharge of public functions, two alternative courses are open to him: (i) The public prosecutor may file a complaint on his behalf under sub-sec. (2) or (ii) the public servant himself may avail of his original right to complain under sub-sec. (1 ). As sub-sec. (2) is not in derogation of sub-sec. (1) the person aggrieved is also competent to file a complaint himself and ordinarily it is he who should file it under sub-sec. (l ). Sub-sec. (6) of Section 199 of the Cr. (1 ). As sub-sec. (2) is not in derogation of sub-sec. (1) the person aggrieved is also competent to file a complaint himself and ordinarily it is he who should file it under sub-sec. (l ). Sub-sec. (6) of Section 199 of the Cr. P. Code clearly lays down that "nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint. " Thus in my opinion in view of sub-sec. (6) of section 199 of Cr. P. Code, it becomes clear that the provisions if sub-Section (2) are only enabling in nature and they do not deprive a person even if he falls under the various categories mentioned in sub-sec. (2) from filing a complaint for an offence under Section 500 of the i. P. Code in the regular way before a magistrate who may take cognizance of the offence on the basis of any such complaint. I am supported in my view by the judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Taslimuddin v. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 1990 (3) crimes 534. In view of the above position the judgment and order dated 16-4-1991 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Nadiad below application Exh. 84 in Cri. Case No. 1551/86 is hereby quashed and set aside and the Trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. As the case is old one, the Trial Court should dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. ( 5 ) RULE is made absolute. Petition allowed. .