T. Ramabhadran, J.C.
1. In this revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Chamba, rejecting certain contentions put forward by the petitioner, three points were urged by learned counsel. I shall deal with them, seriatim.
2. (A) In the first place, Mr. Prithvi Raj contended that the sanction. Ex. P. S., accorded by the Lieutenant-Governor, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 198-B (3) (c), Cr. P. C., was invalid, since, in his view, after 1-11-1956, Himachal Pradesh became an Union Territory and the Lieutenant-Governor as Administrator, did not have the powers of a State Government. This point has been carefully considered by the learned Sessions Judge. On a careful perusal of Notification No. SCO 2536 dated 1-11-1956 and the previous Notification No. 2/1/56-Judl. II dated 15-2-1956, the conclusion is irresistible that under Section 198-B (3) (c), even after 1-11-1956, the Lieutenant-Governor was competent to accord sanction to the prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 500, 501 and 502, I.P.C.
I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that Notification No. S.R.O. 2536 ofSI-11-1956 should have made a distinct mention of power to accord sanction under Section 198-B (3) (c). It should be borne in mind that Notification No. 2/1/56-Judl. II dated 15-2-1956 specifically authorized the Lieutenant-Governor to discharge the functions of the Central Government under Section 198-B (3), Criminal Procedure Code, in case of public servants serving in Himachal Pradesh.
2a. (B) In the second place, it was suggested that the sanction was defective, as it did not authorise the Public Prosecutor, in so many words, to file the complaint against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it would have been proper to mention in the sanction, Ex. P. S., that the Public Prosecutor, Chamba, had been authorised to file the complaint. An affidavit, however, was filed by the Public Prosecutor. Chamba, in tha Court of the Sessions Judge to the effect that he had been instructed to file the complaint.
It does not stand to reason that the Public Prosecutor would file such complaints without due authority. In my opinion, it is not essential that the sanction should contain a recital to the effect that the Public Prosecutor had been authorised to file the complaint. It would be sufficient if in the body of the complaint the Public Prosecutor mentioned that he had been instructed by the Lieutenant-Governor to file the complaint. In the presence of the affidavit filed by the Public Prosecutor (which, obviously, has not been rebutted), I find no force in this contention.
3. (C) In the third place, it was urged that the complaint was defective, as it did not bear the signature of Shri T. S. Negi, former Deputy Commissioner and Settlement Officer, Chamba, against whom the offence of defamation was alleged to have been committed. Mr. Prithvi Raj argued that under Section 198-B (13), Cr. P. C., read with Section 198 thereof, it was incumbent upon Mr. Negi to sign the complaint before it was filed in Court. Reliance was placedupon Shankar v. State, AIR 1959 Kerala 100, where! one of the two learned Judges, forming the Division Bench, observed that :
'On a proper construction of Sub-section (13) of Section 198-B, a complaint by the person aggrieved is not dispensed with even with regard to cases falling under that section and a prosecution must fail for want of such a complaint, where the complaint is solely by the Public Prosecutor, and the victim of offence has made no complaint.'
A contrary view was, however, taken by the other learned Judge, who expressed himself in the following terms :
'Sub-section (13) of Section 198-B does not lead to the conclusion that the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, should also be a party in a complaint filed by the Public Prosecutorunder Section 198-B. The object of Sub-section (13) of Section 198-B is only to preserve the rights of the person, against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to directly approach, if he so chooses, the proper Court by himself making 3 complaint under Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code.'
4. With due respect, I agree with Vaidialingam JJ., that reading the two sections together, when a complaint, in writing, is made by the Public Prosecutor under Section 198-B, it is not necessary that the public servant defamed should also sign it. Consequently, this contention also fails.
5. No other point was urged.