857 of 2012
REPORTABLE
RAJDEEP SARDESAI
APPELLANT
Vs.
RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.853 OF 2012,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.854 OF 2012,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2012,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.856 OF 2012,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.858 OF 2012,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.851 OF 2012,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.850 OF 2012,
AND
Page1
J U D G M E N T
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
final common
passed
by
the
judgment and
High
Court
of
order dated
Judicature
29.4.2011
of
Andhra
and
batch
matters
whereby,
the
High
Court
Page2
Crl.
Petns.
arising from
Complaint
Nos.
Complaint
filed
for
defamation
under
Section
(s)against
appellants
Permission
given
for
filing
complaint
vide
Sanction
Nos.
857/2012
(Rajdeep Sardesai v.
State
of
A.P.
&
ors.)
Crl.
P.
Nos.
1874, 1590, 1646
& 1638 of 2008
filed
before
High
Court
against CC No.
1/2008
reg.
telecasting
a
news
programme
in
CNN-IBN
English
News
channel
under
the caption 20
minutes-Sohrabud
din
Inside
Story
on
13.5.2007
at
1730 hrs.
199(2) Cr.PC
before
the
Court
IV,
Addl.
Metropolitan
Sessions
Judge,
Nampally
imposing
charges
under
Sections
499, 500 and
120B of IPC
G.O.
Rt.
No.6581
dated
27.10.2007
199(2)
r/w
Sec.
200
Cr.PC before
the Court of
II
Addl.
Metropolitan
Sessions
Judge,
Nampally,
imposing
charges
under
Ss.
499,
500,
501, 502 and
120B of IPC
G.O.
Rt.
No.6582
dated
27.10.2007
850/2012
(Sidhartha Gautam v.
State of A.P. & Ors.)
852/2012
(Swati Vashistha &
Anr. v. State of A.P.
& Ors.)
853/2012
(V.K. Shashikuamr v.
State of A.P. & Ors.)
855/2012
(Ahmed Ali Shaik &
Anr. v. State of A.P.
& Ors.)
856/2012
(Hemender
Sharma
&
Ors. v. State of A.P.
& Ors.)
Crl.A.Nos.854/2012
(Gulab Kothari &
Ors. v. State of
A.P. & Anr.)
and
858/2012
(Hemender Sharma &
Ors. v. State of
A.P. & Ors.
Page3
Crl.A.851/2012
(Lateef Mohammad Khan
v. State of A.P. &
Anr.)
2.
Crl. P. No.1252
of
2008
filed
before
High
Court
against
CC
No.24/2007-reg.
publication
of
news
items
in
Siasath
Urdu
Daily,
dated
8.5.2007
199(2)
r/w
Sec.200
Cr.PC before
the court of
I
Addl.
Metropolitan
Sessions
Judge,
Hyderabad
imposing
allegations
under
Sections
499,
500,
501, 502 and
120B of IPC
G.O.
Rt.
No.6580 and
dated
27.10.2007
(Crimes
regard
published
and
to
by
publications
Trivedi,
the
the
and
SIT),
Additional
Commissioner
Hyderabad,
Andhra
Sohrabuddin
appellants
was
encounter
in
telecast
the
on
of
Pradesh,
case
was
respective
CNN-IBN.
under
Section
199(4)(b)
of
the
Code
of
Page4
the appellants
for offences
punishable under
the
against
the
appellants
through
the
State
to
as
telecast
on
CNN-IBN
English
News
channel
under
the
Page5
No.
of
2008,
is
extracted
hereunder
for
our
4.
were
initiated
by
the
State
Public
the appellants.
The State
of Andhra
Pradesh
against
the
accused-appellants
for
the
the
cognizance
State
of
Public
the
Prosecutor,
offences
has
alleged
taken
the
against
the
Page6
before
the
Court
for
further
proceedings
in
the
respective cases.
5.
Government
Cr.P.C.,
under
permitting
the
Section
State
199(4)(b)
Public
of
the
Prosecutor
to
the
dealing
with
appellants
the
referred
contentions
to
with
supra
and
regard
after
to
the
Page7
2007
per se
are integrally
connected with
the
decided
parties.
on
The
the
High
evidence
Court
to
further
be
adduced
held
that
by
the
in
the
initiated against
them and
there was
no
certain
substantial
questions
of
law
for
Page8
7.
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
appellants
in
Criminal
Appeal Nos. 850, 852, 853, 855, 856, 857 of 2012 has
contended that the State Public Prosecutor cannot make
a complaint under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. against an
individual
accorded
in
by
respect
the
of
State
whom
no
Government
sanction
as
has
been
required
under
appellants
that
they
have
been
summoned
on
the
sanction
Government
under
order
Section
accorded
199(4)
of
by
the
the
State
Cr.P.C.
for
in
prosecution
the
of
case
any
on
named
hand
and
individual
not
in
for
the
the
said
mind
on
the
part
of
the
State
Government
while
Page9
second
10
respondent
to
initiate
criminal
proceedings
It
is
further
contended
on
behalf
of
the
criminal
petitions
of
the
appellants
and
not
the
relevant
High
fact
Court
that
has
also
not
telecasting
the
considered
story
by
the
the
of
the
second
respondent
being
public
Page10
10.
Further,
Court
has
important
11
it
is
failed
aspect
contended
to
of
take
the
by
him
into
matter
that
the
High
consideration
namely,
the
an
State
the
second
sanction
as
respondent
required
for
under
according
Section
previous
199(4)
of
the
Government
as
they
have
failed
to
find
out
and
to
whether
the
permit
such
same
warrant
institution
the
of
State
criminal
Page11
to
the
facts
12
presented
to
it
and
therefore,
the
respondent
to
initiate
criminal
proceedings
consideration
criminal
complaints
another
relevant
instituted
by
fact
that
the
respondent
No.
Page12
one
of
them
13
in
committing
the
alleged
offence,
not
issued
been
by
the
done,
therefore,
Metropolitan
the
Sessions
summoning
Judge
order
and
the
Joshi
&
Anr.
v.
The
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh2,
and
Further,
the
learned
senior
counsel
placing
Page13
14
Mr.
Aruneshwar
Gupta,
the
learned
counsel
It
is
further
contended
by
him
in
Criminal
dated
prosecution
13.8.2007
was
sought
that
the
against
sanction
the
for
Editor,
the
News
Page14
15
rejected
by
the
State
Government,
It
is
further
contended
by
him
that
since
the
criminal
rejecting
proceedings
grant
of
sanction
against
order
the
Editor
against
and
appellant
of
court
proceedings.
He
further
placed
Page15
16
Singh
v.
Ranbir
Singh
and
Anr.6,
contending
the sanction
order and
issue summons
against
Both
the
appellants
cogent
contended
material
according
learned
counsel
that
before
there
the
previous sanction
respondent
permitting
him
on
must
State
in favour
to
behalf
of
the
valid
and
Government
for
be
of the
initiate
second
criminal
Page16
17
have reasonably
applied its
mind to
conclude
discharging
servant
was
his
intended
public
to
be
function
harmed.
as
Only
public
after
such
criminal
appellants.
proceedings
This
aspect
initiated
of
the
matter
against
has
not
the
been
It
behalf
is
of
further
the
urged
appellants
by
the
that
learned
the
High
counsel
on
Court
has
the
Cr.P.C.,
the
previous
sanction
is
required
Page17
18
offence
and
not
necessarily
against
specific
of
contended
the
on
Union
behalf
or
of
State.
the
Therefore,
appellants
in
it
is
Criminal
by
the
first
respondent should
respondent
have been
on
behalf
of
confined to
the
only
contended
that
several
investigations
were
by
of
Ms.
this
Johri
Court
which
in
the
finds
case
reference
of
in
Rubabbuddin
Page18
19
the
same
cannot
be
made
the
basis
of
any
the
translated
paper
Editor
in
which
of
Hindi
is
Rajasthan
and
Patrika
published
allegedly
it
defamatory
858 of 2012,
got
the
same
in
their
news
to
the
second
alleged
2010 (2 )
defamatory
news
to
its
subscribers
SCC 200
Page19
20
who
acted
alleged
offending
and
news
published
believing
in
it
bona
to
be
fide
the
true
and
UNI,
the
appellant
cannot
be
prosecuted
for
the
demands
that
publication
of
criminal
news
defamation
items
and
in
relation
articles
may
not
to
be
Section
501
of
I.P.C.
is
for
defamatory
Page20
21
of
I.P.C.
substances
Section
is
for
containing
499
of
sale
of
printed
defamatory
I.P.C.
would
or
material.
cover
the
engraved
Therefore,
Editor
while
502
of
I.P.C.
covers
the
seller.
As
the
order
respondent
was
granted
against the
in
favour
Editor of
of
the
second
the Newspapers
and
Shrestha,
the
appellant-Mr.
learned
Lateef
Mohd.
counsel
Khan,
appearing
General
for
Secretary,
Page21
22
respondent
under
the
news
item
Rajiv
Committee
published
in
aware
the
of
attracted
Siyasat
made
above
Urdu
Daily
The
alleged
same.
against
the
him
as
the
to
statements
make
the
offences
allegations
public
are
not
in
the
questioned
the
legality
and
validity
of
of
the
second
respondent
to
prosecute
the
Page22
23
media
by
the
appellants
were
defamatory
and
satisfied
that
the
reputation
of
the
second
statements
by
the
appellants
herein.
Page23
24
criminal
proceedings
against
the
appellant,
whom
the
criminal
prosecution
has
to
be
He
has
further
contended
that
the
learned
court with
their respective
counter to
the
stalled
by
the
appellants
herein
by
initiating
of
the
rival
legal
contentions
urged
in
the
Page24
its
25
appellate
jurisdiction,
as
the
appellants
are
Mr.
Pappu
Nageshwar
Rao,
the
learned
counsel
sanction
accorded
in
favour
of
the
second
Sections
132,
188,
sought to distinguish
196,
197,
199
of
Cr.P.C.
He
Lal12
and
B. Basavalingappa
and
Anr.
v.
V.
under
Section
Procedure,
198B
1898,
(3)(a)of
by
any
the
Code
Secretary
of
or
Page25
26
to prosecute
the persons
who have
committed
regarding
the
limitation
for
sanction
and
justify
that
Government
to
the
sanction
prosecute
accorded
the
by
appellants
the
State
herein
is
in favour
fault
with
by
of second
the
respondent cannot
appellants
and
prayed
be
for
behalf
of
learned
counsel
for
both
the
parties
and
in
Criminal
appeals
that
Appeal
the
No.857
High
of
2012
and
Court
has
not
Page26
considered
27
all
the
issues
raised
before
it
in
the
under
favour
of
the
facts,
circumstances
previous
the
second
sanction
is
relevant
Government
respondent.
and
On
evidence
accorded
in
examining
the
record,
the
on
to
order
launch
necessary
Sri
Latif
Mohammad
Khan,
Rajasthan
Patrika
Etemaad
Urdu
Daily.
By
careful
reading
of
the
initiation
of
criminal
prosecution
against
the
Page27
28
media
which
according
to
the
second
contention
liable
to
be
is
untenable
rejected.
The
in
law
same
and
is
therefore,
accordingly
rejected.
Page28
27.
Further,
29
the
reliance
placed
by
the
learned
this
Court
referred
to
supra
while
according
criminal
State
proceedings
Government
contention
is
has
also
against
not
wholly
the
appellants
applied
its
untenable
in
mind,
law
the
this
as
the
satisfaction
on
the
part
of
the
State
Page29
power
by
30
the
State
Government
while
exercising
its
previous
Government
provisions
sanction
for the
of
the
to
be
accorded
purpose of
by
the
State
prosecution under
Prevention
of
Corruption
the
Act.
Civil
Rights
Act,
1955,
the
complainant-second
as
contemplated
under
the
aforesaid
Page30
the
31
appellants,
representation
petition
the
to the
with
second
respondent
State Government
regard
to
made
along with
initiation
of
criminal
same,
the
administrative
matter,
State
powers
rightly
Government
in
appreciated
applied
its
mind
exercise
the
of
its
of
the
accorded
the
facts
and
the
provisions
referred
to
supra
against
the
after
appreciating
that
the
statements
Page31
32
behalf
of
the
appellants
that
there
was
no
Gujarat
Police
Officers
to
facilitate
taking
respondent
being
telecast
and
published
in
that
the
sanction
accorded
by
the
State
is
not
in
relation
to
the
discharge
of
public
Page32
33
point
of
time,
was
discharging
his
public
of
while
time
aiding
was
in
the
the
Gujarat
capacity
Police
of
his
at
that
official
determined
by
regular
trial
after
examining
the
The
Court
reliance
in
the
placed
case
of
upon
the
Rubabbuddin
judgment
Sheikh
of
this
(supra),
Court
at
para
of
the
judgment
in
the
case
Page33
34
publishing
and
telecasting
defamatory
statements
Sessions
Judge.
Therefore,
the
above
of
this
Court
in
the
case
of
Urmila
Devi
of
the
alleged
defamatory
statements
is
no
sanction
order
accorded
to
initiate
Page34
35
against
connected
appeals
all
the
other
amounts
to
appellants
giving
in
the
wider
which
is
not
the
object
of
the
aforesaid
By
careful
reading
of
Section
199(4)
of
the
needs
Government
in
to
obtain
respect
of
sanction
each
one
from
of
the
the
State
persons
the
names
of
the
accused
are
required
to
be
Page35
36
the
State
Government.
sanction
is accorded
persons
involved
It
is
sufficient
to prosecute
in
that
all the
occurrence,
if
one
concerned
thus,
the
also
liable
to
be
rejected
and
is
accordingly
rejected.
33.
Abhimanue
Shrestha
on
behalf
of
the
appellants
in
on
the
basis
of
the
news
items
Prosecutor
on
behalf
of
the
respondent.
Page36
urged
on
37
behalf
of
the
appellants
and
the
same
is
behalf
of
the
rejected.
34.
The
second
learned
counsel
respondent
appearing
rightly
on
sought
to
justify
the
on
Section
regarding
308
the
proviso
limitation
2,
Section
for
473
sanction
of
and
Page37
38
v.
The
State,
Prosecutor
and
Sant
Pachhalloor
Lal
v.
Noohu
Krishan
v.
Lal
Public
and
B.
placing
reliance
on
Articles
19
and
21
of
the
most
precious
and
constitute
an
affront
to
the
counsel
on
behalf
of
the
respondents
by
must be
considered after
adducing cogent
and
Page38
valid
before
39
evidence
the
on
record
learned
by
trial
the
Public
Judge
who
Prosecutor
shall
then
36.
appellants
under
Section
482
of
the
Cr.P.C.
is
perfectly legal and valid, the same does not call for
interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction as there is no substantial question of law
framed in the appeals nor is there any miscarriage of
justice for the appellants to interfere with at this
stage. In our considered view, having regard to the
nature of the complaint, the respondents are required
to
prove
the
allegations
against
the
appellants
by
Page39
40
The appeals
dismissed.
The
orders
granting
stay
of
J.
[C. NAGAPPAN]
New Delhi;
May 14, 2015
Page40