Citations: S.C. Abboy Naidu Vs Kanniappa Chettiar, AIR 1929 Mad 175
Date of Judgment: 24/10/1928
Equivalent Citations: AIR 1929 Mad 175, 114 Ind Cas 817
Case No.: N/A
Case Type: Criminal Petition
Petitioner: S.C. Abboy Naidu
Respondent: Kanniappa Chettiar
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Reilly
Court: Madras High Court
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 19, 500
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197
Cases referred:
- Sarvothama Rao Vs Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapet AIR 1923 Mad 475
Facts:
- The petitioner is the President of the Union Board of Tiruvallur. There were some elections to be conducted for Members of Taluk and Union Boards made by the Government under the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920. The respondent Kanniappa Chettiar was one of the nominees.
- The nomination papers for an election to a seat on the Board rejected the nomination of Kanniappa Chettiar on the ground that he was suffering from leprosy which is a disqualification under Section 55 of the Act. Due to this the election was postponed for 45 days in order to give Kanniappa Chettiar a chance to produce a medical certificate of witness from the District Surgeon.
- And in order to inform the respondent, the President puts up a notice on the notice board of the Union Office and sent copies of the notice to the Presidents of the District and Taluk Boards for information.
- On this Kanniappa Chettiar complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tiruvallur that the President by so doing had defamed him.
- The Sub-Divisional Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the complaint on the ground that the President was a public servant doing his official duty and no authority for the complaint had been obtained from the Local Government as required by Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.
- Kanniappa Chettiar then filed another complaint regarding the same to the District Magistrate, who first forwarded it to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tiruvallur for disposal but afterwards transferred it to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Saidapet.
Issues Involved:
- Is the Petitioner (President) liable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Contention of Petitioner:
The counsel for Petitioner contented that:
- Although he is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code he was acting as a Judge within the meaning of that section and, therefore, cognizance of the complaint cannot be taken without the authority of the Local Government.
- It is a Judge within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 who is protected by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ”Judge” denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge but also every person who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceedings, civil or criminal, a conclusive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be conclusive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be conclusive.
Contention of Respondent:
The counsel for Respondent contented that:
- The President by so doing had committed an offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by putting up a notice for issuing a medical certificate on the notice board.
- “Legal proceeding” in Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is the same as a judicial proceeding as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “legal proceeding” there is obviously a proceeding in which a judgment may or must be given, a judgment being reasonable decision but a decision arrived at judicially.
- It is clear that a President when accepting or rejecting a nomination under Rule 4 is giving a definitive judicial decision in such a proceeding of Sarvothama Rao Vs Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapet A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 475.
Judgment:
The proceedings were quashed.
The court held that Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the complaint without the authority of the Government and hence the proceedings were quashed. The decision was in favour of the President.
Ratio Decidendi:
The petitioner had no intention to defame the respondent though he went out of his way and did more than he was required by the rules to do that is by publishing his decision on the notice board of the Union Office and sending copies of it to the Presidents of the District and Taluk Boards.
Conclusion:
The Madras High Court has defined the term ‘legal proceeding’ as a proceeding regulated or prescribed by law in which a judicial decision is accorded under Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment should not be unreasonable. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the complaint without the authority of the Government.
Drafted By: Kimi Kantak, Govind Ramnath Kare College of Law
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: November 09, 2021 at 19:43 IST