P.C. JOSHI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 25-10-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
.2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
63 
for larger sums than what were legitimately due to 
him. It is contended that on these facts it could not 
be said that there was a general refu&al to pay rent 
within the meaning of s. 85 of the. Tenancy Act. 
Hence, it is said that the Notification was vltra vires 
the section &t)d inoperative. We do not think that 
the tenants can be allowed to raise this point in this 
Court. It does not appear to have been raised in 
the High Court~ The High Court's judgment makes no 
mention of it. Whether it is open for a Court to go 
behind the notification issued under s. 85 and decide 
its validity or not, this contention of the tenants raises 
a question of fact as to how many tenants bad refused 
to pay rent. It also raises a question of interpret&. 
tion of the words "general refusal to pay " in s. 85. 
None of these questions was raised at any earlier 
stage. We are therefore, not inclined to allow the 
tenants to raise them now. 
In the result we allow the appeal with costs here· 
and below. 
Appeal allowed. 
P. C. JOSHI AND ANOTHER 
"· 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(S. K. D.&s and J. C. Sn:e:, JJ.) 
-lo 
Criminal Trial-Defamation of tublic seroam in respect of 
public function-:-Complaint_ before Sessions J!"ge by Public Prose-
cutor-If reqrnred to be· signed by the public servant also-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, x898 (V of x898); ss. x98 and x98-B .. 
-I 
The Public Prosecutor, Kanpur, filed a complaint in the 
Cour.t ot'Session, Kanpur, charging the appellants with having 
published a news item which was false and defamatory of the 
Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The complaint complied with 
the requirements of s. x98-B, Code of ~rimtnal Procedure. 1:he 
· appellants con~ended that the complamt should have co~phed 
with the requirements of s. x98 of the Code also and, as it was . 
T hallwr K esari 
Singh 
v. 
The State of 
Rajasthan 
<So Others 
Imam .J. 
Octob1r a5. 
P. C. Joshi 
Qi.. Another 
v. 
The State of 
Uttar P1'adesh 
Shah ]. 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
not signed by the Chief Minister, the Sessions Judge had no 
jurisdiction to entertain it. 
· 
. 
Held, that it was not necessary for the Chief Minister also 
to sign the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor. The non-
obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in this 
Code " in sub-s. (1) of s. 198-B excludes the operation of the 
other provisions of the Code relating to initiation and trial of 
the offence of defamation, including s. 198. Sub-section (13) of 
s. 198-B which provides that the provisions of s. 198-B shall be 
in addition to and not in derogation of s. 198 merely preserves 
the rig ht of the person defamed to file a complaint under s. 198. 
The two sections provide alternative remedies. The provisions 
in s. 198-B relating to the award of compensation to the accused 
in case of false and frivolous or vexatious accusation do not 
affect this conclusion. Normally it is the public servant who 
moves the Government for taking proceedings and under sub-
s. (5) he is required to be examined as a witness to support the 
prosecution, and it cannot be said that he has no concern with 
the lodging of a complaint under s. 198-B. 
C. B. L. Bhatnag"" v. Tiu State, A.I.R. 1958 l3om. 196 and 
R. Sankar v. The State, I.L.R. (1959) Kerala 195, disapproved. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JUBISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 130 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave ·from the judgment and 
order dated April 28, 1960, of the Allahabad High 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 18615 of 1959. 
N. 0. Ohatterjee, D .. P. Singh, T. S. Venkataraman, 
R. K. Garg, S. 0. Agarwal and M. K. Ramamurthi, 
for the appellants. 
G. S. Pathak, G. 0. Mathur and O. P. Lal, for the 
respondent. 
1960. October 25. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SHAH J.-Appellant No. 1 is the editor and appel-
lant No. 2 is the printer and publisher of the "New 
Age "-an English Weekly news sheet published in 
Delhi. On May 15, 1959, the Public Prosecutor, Kan-
pur, filed a complaint 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 defa.ma..-
tory of the Chief Miniater of the State of Utta.r Pra-
desh " in order to ha.rm his reputation in the eyes of 
I -
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
65 
the public in genera.I a.nd among hi.s acquaintances in 
particular". With
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.