1638 of 2008 and batch matters whereby, the High Court dismissed all the criminal petitions except Criminal Petition No.
Aggrieved by the summoning orders passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in C.C. No.
The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge before whom companyplaints were instituted by the State Public Prosecutor, has taken the companynizance of the offences alleged against the appellants and passed orders summoning them to appear before the Court for further proceedings in the respective cases.
Appeal Nos.
27 of 2007, C.C. NO.
The following table would be apposite to clarify which appeal is filed against which criminal petition companyplaint case Crl.
P.C. for prosecuting the individual electronic and print media involved in the case on hand and number for the prosecution of any named individual in the said sanction order and therefore, there is numberapplication of mind on the part of the State Government while according the previous sanction orders in favour of the second respondent to initiate criminal proceedings under the said provisions referred to supra against the appellants herein.
7592 of 2007 J. Akbar Anr.
P.C., it does number indicate that in order to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused, the public servant needs to obtain sanction from the State Government in respect of each one of the persons against whom the same transaction of offence is alleged and the names of the accused are required to be mentioned specifically in the sanction order accorded by the State Government.
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the State Public Prosecutor filed the companyplaints against the accused appellants for the offences referred to supra.
P. Nos.
7592 of 2007, which were filed against the order of summoning in various companyplaints filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the second respondent.
Aggrieved by the companymon order of the High Court, these appeals are filed by the appellants raising certain substantial questions of law for companysideration of this Court.
P.C. before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking to quash the same, urging various legal companytentions.
Pursuant to the above said sanction accorded by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, the criminal proceedings were initiated by the State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh against the appellants.
The High Court after hearing all the above said petitions together, adverting to the previous sanction order accorded in favour of respondent No.
P.C., permitting the State Public Prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings for the offences alleged against the appellants referred to supra and after dealing with the companytentions with regard to the legality and validity of the said sanction orders read with the Rules and adverting to various judgments of this Court, allowed only Criminal Petition No.
2 by the State Government under Section 199 4 b of the Cr.
7592 of 2007, 264 of 2008 and 1252 of 2008 under Section 482 of Cr.
3 of 2007, and C.C. No.24 of 2007, the appellants filed Crl.
v. The State of A.P. and dismissed all other criminal petitions holding that the news telecast in the electronic media by CNN IBN and other news items published in various newspapers of the appellants per se are integrally companynected with the official discharge of duties of the second respondent and held that whether the same amounts to defamatory, libel or scandalous statements is a matter that has to be decided on the evidence to be adduced by the parties.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. The present group of appeals is directed against the final companymon judgment and order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.
