S.Malik - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for parties.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that a complaint was filed before the Magistrate concerned by opposite party no. 2 D.K. Prasad under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the applicant on 17-12-78 went out of his office in the Cantonment Board, Bareilly, and in the presence of certain persons who had collected, defamed the sister-in-law of the complainant, namely, Smt. Lila Kant, an Advocate practising at Bareilly and Vice President of the Cantonment Board, saying that she is a lear, is a third-class woman etc. According to the complaint, he lives jointly with his brother and sister-in-law.. Smt. Lila Kant, it is said, is a respectable woman of status and due to the words uttered by the applicant, the complainant himself being the brother-in-law of tine lady felt defamed and lowered in the eyes of the public. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence under section 200 and under section 202 CrPC summoned the accused and thereafter on the objections raised by the applicant pleading the bar of sections 197 (1) and 199 CrPC dismissed the complaint. The learned Magistrate held that the applicant being a Government servant not removable by any authority other than the Central Government and as it should be deemed that the alleged offence was committed while he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties, the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance without a proper sanction under section 199 CrPC. It was also argued that the complaint should have been dismissed as it was not filed by the lady, said to have been defamed.
(3.) AGAINST the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint, the complainant went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who transferred it to the court of Additional Sessions Judge and the Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 14-11-79 set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate holding that neither section 197 nor section 199 CrPC is attracted. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that is could not be said that the applicant was either acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties when he went out of his office and standing amongst persons who were staging a demonstration, he is said to have defamed Smt. Lila Kant. He has based his observations keeping in view 'the observations made by the Supreme Court in AIR 1956 SC 44 (Matajog Dobey v. H. G. Bhari).;