BHAGWAN PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. N P MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave arising out of a complaint filed by the respondent Shri N. P. Mishra against the appellant Shri Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava, the only question requiring determination is if cognizance of the case by the Magistrate required previous sanction under Section 197, Criminal P. C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in whose Court the complaint was instituted, upheld the preliminary objection based on the absence of previous sanction and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, on revision, agreed with this view. On further revision the Patna High Court disagreed with the view taken by the two Courts below and holding S. 197, Criminal P. C., to be inapplicable to the case directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make further inquiry into the petition of complaint. Before us the view taken by the High Court is assailed.

(2.) The complaint was filed by the respondent Shri N. P. Mishra, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Chapra (hereinafter called 'the complainant') against Shri Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava, Civil Surgeon, Chapra (appellant in this Court) and Shri Ramjash Pandey, cook, Sadar Hospital, Chapra. It was alleged in the complaint that on the 6th and 7th January, 1964, the appellant had used defamatory language towards the complainant, and the two accused persons had insulted and humiliated him in the eyes of the public. As a result, the complainant was put to great mental pain and agony, his reputation was harmed and his professional career prejudicially affected. The relevant averments in the complaint may now be stated with the requisite detail. The complainant claiming to be a Master of Surgery and a specialist in Ophthalmology had joined Chapra Sadar Hospital as Civil Assistant Surgeon (C. A. S.) in January, 1962. The appellant joined the said hospital as Civil Surgeon towards the end of 1962. The appellant bore ill-will and malice towards the complainant and was always on the look out for an opportunity to harm him in his profession and to humiliate and disgrace him in the eyes of the public. Some cataract operations were to be performed on January 7, 1964, in the Blind Relief Camp to be organised for that purpose. On January 6, when the complainant was making final selection of the patients for the cataract operations to be performed on the following day, the appellant informed the complainant that he had not been able to arrange for cataract knives and that the complainant should arrange for them from somewhere. The complainant requested the appellant to place orders for the knives with some local firm and give him the necessary letter of authority so that the same could be purchased on credit. The appellant apparently did not like this suggestion. He got enraged and in an insulting tone and language told the complainant that it was his job to arrange for the knives and that as a last resort, he might bring his own knife. The complainant repeated his suggestion adding that in the alternative a man be sent to Patna to make local purchases. On this the appellant again addressed the complainant in highly defamatory language in the presence of the hospital staff and the attendants. On January 7, 1964, at about 9 a.m., the complainant was in the operation theatre. Some members of the hospital staff and some attendants of the patients who were waiting outside the operation theatre were also present. The appellant came there and again asked the complainant if he had brought two more cataract knives from somewhere. The complainant replied that in the absence of the appellant's final orders the two knives could not be arranged from the local market. The appellant again got annoyed and addressed the complainant in insulting tone and defamatory language. Not satisfied with the use of such language, the appellant ordered Ramesh Pandey, cook of the hospital, to turn out the 'complainant, the purport of the actual words used being "Pandey, turn out this badmash" (one who follows evil courses). To his utter humiliation the complainant was then actually pushed out by the cook. The actual words used in Hindi by the appellant have been reproduced in the judgment of the High Court. We have, therefore, not considered it necessary to reproduce them again, except the word 'badmash' of which the literal meaning in English as stated by us is generally well understood.

(3.) The question which falls for decision by this Court is whether the complainant's case is covered by Section 197, Cr. P. C. and previous sanction of the superior authority is necessary before the trial Court can take cognizance of the complaint.