Rajdeep Sardesai Vs. State of AP & Ors.
|
Head Note
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 199 (2) , (4)
Prosecution for Defamation - Sanction for Prosecution - Contention that 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 repelled - 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 199 (2) , (4)
Prosecution for Defamation - Sanction for Prosecution - Contention urged on behalf of the appellants that their names have not been specifically mentioned in the said sanction order hence sanction not valid repelled - Held that 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.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 199 (2) , (4)
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 - Prosecution for Defamation - Sanction for Prosecution - Complainant-second respondent during the relevant point of time was the Police Officer in the services of the State Government - He cannot prosecute the appellants in a court of law without obtaining previous sanction from the State Government as contemplated under provisions of Section 199 Cr.P.C. - In order to prosecute 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 - Sanction was accorded by the State Government after appreciating that the statements telecast/published by the appellants in the electronic and print media which are all statements defaming the second respondent while he was discharging his public function as a public servant - 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 held to be untenable in law, liable to be rejected.
Topic(s)-Quashing of Summoning - Defamation - Sanction for Prosecution - Not quashed