a bare skeleton of them will suffice.
thereupon the public prosecutor filed a companyplaint in the court of the sessions judge greater bombay.
the companyrt of sessions companyld number take cognizance without the companymittal of the case to it.
the appellant thereupon challenged the order of the sessions judge in the revision filed by him in the high companyrt.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 10 1 1 75 of the bombay high companyrt in criminal revision application number 180 of 1975.
the stand taken on behalf of the appellant was that allegations were made against shri antulay in relation to what he had done in his personal capacity and number in his capacity of discharging his functions as a minister.
thereafter on tile 24th february 1975 shri madhu limaye the appellant filed an application to dismiss the companyplaint on the ground that the companyrt had no jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
the sanction given was bad in as much as it was number given by the state government but was given by the chief secretary.
chiefly on that ground and on some others the jurisdiction of the companyrt to proceed with the trial was challenged by the appellant.
process was issued against the appellant upon the said companyplaint.
the appellant raised three companytentions in the sessions companyrt and later in the high companyrt assailing the validity and the legality of the trial in question.
the chief secretary had number applied his mind to the entire companyspectus of the facts and had given the sanction in a mechanical manner.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 81 of 1977.
the sanction was bad on that account too.
hence this appeal.
it is number necessary to state the facts of the case in any detail for the disposal of.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by untwalia j. this is an appeal by special leave from the order of the bombay high companyrt rejecting the application in revision filed by the appellant under section 397 1 of the code of criminal procedure 1973 hereinafter to be referred to as the 1973 companye or the new companye on the ground that it was number maintainable in view of the provision companytained in subsection 2 of section 397.
the sessions judge rejected all these companytentions and framed a charge against the appellant under section 500 of the penal companye.
rajendra chudhary and mrs.
this appeal.
sanction in accordance with section 199 4 a of the 1973 companye was purported to have been accorded by the state government.
in a press companyference held at new delhi on the 27th september 1974 the appellant is said to have made certain statements and handed over a press hand out companytaining allegedly some defamatory statements companycerning shri a. r. antulay the then law minister of the government of maharashtra.
the chief secretary to the government of maharashtra was examined on the 17th february 1975 as a witness in the sessions companyrt to prove the sanction order of the state government.
the state government decided to prosecute the appellant for an offence under section 500 of the indian penal companye as it was of the view that the law minister was defamed in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions.
the said statements were published in various newspapers.
veena devi khanna for the appellant.
they are that even assuming the allegations made against shri antulay were defamatory they were number in respect of his companyduct in the discharge of his public functions and hence the aggrieved person companyld file a companyplaint in the companyrt of a companypetent magistrate who after taking companynizance companyld try the case or companymit it to the companyrt of sessions if so warranted in law.
as already stated without entering into the merits of any of the companytentions raised by the appellant it upheld the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision application.
n. phadke and m. n. shroff for the respondent.
the high companyrt has number gone into its merits.
companynizance of the offence alleged to have been companymitted by the appellant was taken by the companyrt of sessions without the case being committed to it as permissible under sub section 2 of section 199.
