NEW DELHI: Holding that public prosecutor cannot file defamation case against a person for making defamatory remarks against constitutional post holders in a mechanical manner, the Supreme Court on Friday quashed the conviction of Congress spokesperson who was sentenced to two years jail term for making allegation against Madhya Pradesh chief minister
Shivraj Singh Chouhan in 2014.
The Congress leader
KK Mishra in a press conference in 2014 had said that some of the transport inspection appointed by state government were from the in-laws house of chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and conversation had been made from the CM’s house by an influential woman through 139 phone calls with the accused of Vyapam Scam. He had also said that conversation had been made with the accused persons of the Vyapam Scam from the mobile of Sanjay Chouhan who is a relative of CM.
On the basis of allegations made by Mishra, the public prosecutor filed a complaint against him on the same day after taking sanction from competent authority from state government. The trial court convicted Mishra in the defamation case and awarded him two year jail term.
After analysing the statements of Mishra, a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, R Banumathi and M M Shantanagoudar held that the allegation levelled by the Congress leader had no reasonable nexus with the discharge of public duties by or the office of the CM and defamation case should not have been filed by the prosecutor under Section 199(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and it was for the aggrieved person himself to approach the court for defamation.
“The appointment of persons from the area/place to which the wife of the chief minister belongs and the making of phone calls by the relatives of the CM have no reasonable nexus with the discharge of public duties by the office of the CM. Such statements may be defamatory but then in the absence of a nexus between the same and the discharge of public duties of the office, the remedy under Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. will not be available,” it said.
Section 199(2) provides for a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for offence of defamation committed against the constitutional functionaries and public servants. However, the offence alleged to have been committed must be in respect of acts/conduct in the discharge of public functions of the concerned functionary or public servant. The prosecution under the Section is required to be initiated by the Public Prosecutor.
Referring to extract of the cross-examination of the public prosecutor in the trial court, the bench said that the prosecutor had admitted the absence of any scrutiny by him of the materials on which the prosecution was sought to be launched. “In fact, the public prosecutor had gone to the extent of admitting that he had filed the complaint against the accused appellant on the orders of the state government,” it said.
“As seen from the records, the complaint was filed by the public prosecutor against the appellant on the very same day(when statement was made). The haste with which the complaint was filed prima facie indicates that the public prosecutor may not have applied his mind to the materials placed before him...We, therefore, without hesitation, take the view that the complaint is not maintainable on the very face of it and would deserve our interference,” the bench said.