S. Pathak, O. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
C. Chatterjee, D. P. Singh, T. S. Venkataraman, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the appellants.
October 25.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. Appellant No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 28, 1960, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No.
1 is the editor and appellant No.
2 is the printer and publisher of the ,New Age an English Weekly news sheet published in Delhi.
The High Court rejected all the companytentions raised by the appellants.
Against the order rejecting the companytentions, this appeal with special leave under Art.
On May 15, 1959, the Public Prosecutor, Kanpur, filed a companyplaint in the Court of Session, Kanpur, against the appellants charging them with having published a news item in the issue of the New Age dated November 16, 1958, knowing or having good reasons to believe the same to be false and defamatory of the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh in order to harm his reputation in the eyes of the public in general and among his acquaintances in particular .
1865 of 1959.
With this companyplaint was filed an order under the signature of the Home Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh sanctioning under a. 198B 3 b of the Criminal Procedure Code the filing of a companyplaint by the Public Prosecutor for an offence under s. 500, Indian Penal Code, against the appellants in respect of the news item published on November 16, 1958, under the caption Explosive situation in Kanpur .
They submitted that there was numberevidence that the Home Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh had applied his mind to the facts of the case before sanctioning prosecution of the appellants that in any event, the publication was number defamatory of the Chief Minister in respect of his companyduct in the discharge of his duties as Chief Minister and that the companyplaint filed by the Public Prosecutor number having been signed by the Chief Minister who was the aggrieved person, the Sessions Judge had numberjurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
After six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, he framed a charge against the appellants for the offence of defamation in that they had published the news item under the caption Explosive situation in Kanpur intending to harm or knowing that they were likely to harm the reputation of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
The appellants then applied to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad praying that the order of the Court of Session framing a charge for the offence of defamation be set aside.
The learned Sessions Judge took companynisance of the companyplaint.
130 of 1960.
136 of the Constitution is preferred by the appellants.
