RAJDEEP SARDESAI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 14-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 10 
RAJDEEP SARDESAI 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 857of2012) 
MAY 14, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
C 
s.199(4)(b) - Prosecution for defamation - Previous 
sanction - Second respondent, the Additional Commissioner 
of Police aggrieved with the news item allegedly making false 
implication against him with regard to Sohrabuddin encounter 
case published by appellants in their respective publications 
D and/or telecasted on their channel - Second respondent 
sought previous sanction u/s.199(4)(b) for prosecution of 
appellants which was accorded and complaints were filed 
against appellants through State Public Prosecutor -
Magistrate took cognizance of offence and passed 
E summoning orders - s.482 petition by appellants on the 
ground that they were not individually named in the said 
sanction order-High Court refused to quash the proceedings 
- Held: It was not necessary for the State Government to 
F separately issue sanction order against each one of the 
appellants when they were all responsible for telecasting and 
publishing the said news Item in electronic and print media 
and also when the names of the said electronic and print 
media were already mentioned in the said sanction order- It 
G is sufficient if one sanction is accorded to prosecute all the 
concerned persons involved in that occurrence. 
s. 199 - Exercise of power under - Held: Is in 
administrative and ministerial capacity and such sanction is 
as per the subjective satisfaction on the part of the State 
H Government - Discussed. 
10 
RAJ DEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
11 
PRADESH & ORS. 
s. 199 - Contention for the appellants that the act of the A 
second respondent allegedly aiding the Gujarat Police 
Officers to facilitate taking Sohrabuddin from Bidar to 
Ahmedabad, has nothing to do with the discharge of his 
public functions, hence, the said statement in the news item 
allegedly defaming the second respondent does not attract B 
s. 199 - Held: Such contention wholly untenable in law, for 
the reason that determining the question on whether or not 
the second respondent while aiding the Gujarat Police at that 
point of time was in the capacity of his official discharge of 
his public functions or otherwise, is to be determined by C 
regular trial after examining the facts, circumstances and 
evidence on record - All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 
1968. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. The previous sanction was accorded to 
launch necessary prosecution against the channel and 
the newspaper. Section 199 of Cr.P.C., r/w the All India 
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 provides that previous E 
sanction must be accorded, authorising the initiation of 
criminal prosecution against the accused, however, the 
said provisions do not state that it is necessary to 
mention the names of each one of the accused who are 
alleged to have committed the offence in the same F 
alleged transaction. Therefore, in the case on hand, when 
the previous sanction iwas accorded by the State 
Government against those who were responsible for the 
telecast/publication of the news both in electronic and 
print media which according to the second respondent G 
damaged his reputation, it was not necessary for the 
State Government to separately issue sanction order 
against each one of the appellants, when they are all 
responsible for telecasting and publishing the said news H 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.~. 
A item in the electronic and print media and also when the 
names of the said electronic and print media have 
already been mentioned in the said sanction order. 
Therefore, there is no merit in the contention on behalf 
of the appellants that their names have not been 
B specifically mentioned in the said sanction order. [Para 
26] [28-G-H; 29-A-E] 
2. The exercise of power by the State Government 
under Section 199 of Cr.P.C. is in the administrative and 
C ministerial capacity and such sanction is as per the 
subjective satisfaction on the part of the State 
Government. [Para 27] [29-G] 
Gour Chandra Rout & Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor, 
D 
Cuttack AIR 1963 SC 1198: 1963 Suppl. SCR 447; 
PC. Joshi &Anr. v. The State of UttarPradesh AIR 1961 
SC 387: 1961 SCR 63; Mansukhlal Vitha/das 
Chauhan v. State of Gujarat 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 705: 
(1997) 7 SCC 622- Held inapplicable. 
E 
3. The sanction was accorded by the State 
Government 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.