GANGTOK, India, June 25 -- Sikkim High Court issued the following judgment/order on June 6:
1. Words, denigrating the Respondent and maligning his character were allegedly employed by the Petitioner, when he was the Finance Minister of the concerned State, in his address to the Press, post his participation in the GST Council meeting, held on 19- 12-2019. The Respondent was aggrieved by the slanderous statement, which thereby gave rise to a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the "Cr.P.C."), in the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim, at Gangtok. The Trial Court, vide the impugned Order dated 02-03-2021, in Private Complaint Case No.09 of 2020 (Santiago Martin vs. Dr. T. M. Thomas Issac and Others), after examining the Complainant, his two witnesses and on hearing Learned Counsel for the Complainant found sufficient materials to proceed against the Petitioner under Sections 499/500/501/502 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the "IPC"). Cognizance was taken and summons issued to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned Orders, the Petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking its quashment.
2. Before considering the merits of the matter, it is imperative to clarify here that, in Private Complaint Case No.09 of 2020 (supra), before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim, at Gangtok, the Respondent herein, as Petitioner, had alleged that the accused persons no.2 to 10 had published the article in the newspaper, which contained the defamatory statement viz., "Lottery mafia like Santiago Martin will not be allowed to operate in Kerala", attributed to the accused no.1, the Petitioner herein. The Court, vide the Order dated 02-03-2021, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 499/500/501/502 and 120B of the IPC against all the persons arrayed as accused and issued summons vide the impugned Order, dated 03-03-2021.
(i) Aggrieved thereof, the accused persons in Private Complaint Case No.09 of 2020, except the Petitioner herein, who was arrayed as accused no.1, were before this Court as Petitioners No.1 to 8, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.C. No.06 of 2021 (The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited and Others vs. Santiago Martin and Another), praying that the impugned Orders dated 02-03-2021 and 03-03-2021 in the aforementioned Private Complaint Case No.09 of 2020, be quashed. The present Petitioner was arrayed as Respondent No.2 in Crl.M.C. No.06 of 2021 (supra).
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner put forth the contention that, the Petitioner has erroneously been booked for the offences under Section 499/500/501/502 and 120B of the IPC. The Order of the Magistrate lacks application of judicial mind as vide a subsequent Order, Section 499 of the IPC against the Petitioner, was removed by her sans legal provision for such an action. That, the Petitioner did not print or engrave any defamatory matter against the Respondent, hence no charge lies against him under Section 501 of the IPC. Section 502 of the IPC pertains to the sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, for which the Petitioner in no way can be held accountable as he had taken no such steps. As he did not conspire with any person, the offence under Section 120B of the IPC is entirely irrelevant. That, the Learned Trial Court could have proceeded against the Petitioner, if at all, only under Section 500 of the IPC.
(i) It was next urged that this Court in Crl.M.C. No.06 of 2021 had concluded that the Petitioner was entitled to the protective cover of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., despite which, the proceedings were initiated in the Magisterial Court, without sanction having been obtained under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. to prosecute the Petitioner, who as a Government Servant was merely discharging his duties and had communicated to the Press, the decision of the GST Council with no malice. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Others vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew1 , wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that even if the public servant acts in excess of his duties if there exists a reasonable action, the excess would not deprive him of the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. That, mala fide in the proceedings, can be gauged from the fact that the Complaint has been lodged in Sikkim, while both the Petitioner and the Respondent are from South India.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://hcs.gov.in/hcs/hg_orders/202200000092023_14.pdf
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
