RAJDEEP SARDESAI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 10, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
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 after appreciating that the statements 
telecast/published by the appellants in the electronic and 
print media as well as the statement given by the 
F appellant in the Urdu Daily on the basis of which the 
news is published by its Editor, which were all 
statements defaming the second respondent while he 
was discharging his public function as a public servant. 
Therefore, the contention on behalf of the appellants that 
G there was no application of mind on the part of the State 
Government in
according the said sanction is wholly 
untenable in law. [Para 28] [30-H; 31-A-C] 
4. The contention was urged by the appellants that 
H the act of the second respondent allegedly aiding the
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF AN DH RA 
13 
PRADESH & ORS. 
Gujarat Police Officers to facilitate taking Sohrabuddin A 
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 being telecast and published in 
electronic and print media do not attract Section 199 of B 
Cr.P.C. This contention is also 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 C 
to be determined by regular trial after examining the facts, 
circumstances and evidence on record. [Para 29] [31-
C-G] 
5. By careful reading of Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C., D 
it does not indicate that in order to initiate criminal 
proceedings against the accused, the public servant 
needs to obtain sanction from the State Government in 
respect of each one of the persons against whom the 
same transaction of offence is alleged and the names of E 
the accused are required to be mentioned specifically in 
the sanction order accorded by the State Government. 
It is sufficient if one sanction is accorded to prosecute 
all the concerned persons involved in that occurrence. F 
[Para 32] [33-A-C] 
Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2010 
(1) SCR 991: 2010(2) SCC 200- Distinguished. 
Master Girdhari
Lal, Printer & Publisher of Na ya Bharat 
G 
v. The State 1969 CriLJ P&H 1318; Pachhalloor 
Noohu v. Public Prosecutor1975 CriLJ Kerala 1304; 
Sant Lal v. Krishan Lal 1976 CriLJ Delhi 215; B. 
Basavalingappa and Anr. v. \/. Narasimhan 1974 Cri 
LJ Karnataka 66 - approved. 
H
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Urmila Deviv. YudhvirSingh(2013) 15 SCC 624: 2013 
SCALE 513; Madan Lal v. The State of Punjab AIR 
1967 SC 1590: 1967 SCR 439; Jagir Singh v. Ranbir 
Singh andAnr. AIR 1979 SC 381: 1979 (2) SCR 282; 
Kartar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR 1956 
B 
SC 541: 1956 SCR 476; R. Rajagopal & Anr. v. State 
of T.N. & Ors. (1994) 6 sec 632 : 1994 (4) Suppl. 
SCR 353- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
c 1963 Suppl. SCR 447 
held inapplicable. Para 12 
1961SCR63 
held inapplicable. Para 12 
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 705 held inapplicable. Para 12 
2013 SCALE 513 
referred to. 
Para 12 
D 1967 SCR 439 
referred to. 
Para 13 
1979 (2) SCR 282 
referred to. 
Para 15 
2010 (1) SCR 991 
distinguished 
Para 18 
E 1956 SCR 476 
referred to. 
Para 22 
1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 353 referred to. 
Para 22 
1969 CriLJ P&H 1318 . . approved 
Para 25 
1975 CriLJ Kerala 1304 approved 
Para 25 
F 1976 CriLJ Delhi 215 
approved 
Para 25 
1974 CriLJ Karnataka 66 approved 
Para 25 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 857 of2012. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2011 of the 
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in 
Criminal Petition No. 1638 of 2008. 
WITH 
H 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 853, 854, 855, 856, 858, 851, 850
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
15 
PRADESH & ORS. 
and852of2012. 
A 
Guru Krishna Kumar, Sait Mahmood, Abhinav Mukerji, 
Sumoto de, Tanya Shree, VivekAgarawal, Aruneshwar'gupta, 
Manish Raghav, Nikhil Singh, Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Abhimanue 
Shrestha, Shilpi Dey (For Kamini Jaiswal) for the Appellant. 
B 
P. Vishwanath Shetty, P. Venkat Reddy (For Venkat Palwai 
Law Associates), D. Mahesh Babu, T. N. Rao, Pappu 
Nageshwar Rao, Bina Madhavan (For Lawyer S Knit & Co) 
for the Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. The present group of appeals 
is directed against the final common judgment and order dated 
29.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra D 
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1638 of 2008 
and batch matters whereby, the High Court dismissed all the 
criminal petitions except Criminal Petition No. 7592 of 2007, 
which were filed against the order of summoning in various 
complaints filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on E 
behalf of the second respondent. Th~ following table would be 
apposite to clarify which appeal is filed against which criminal 
petition/complaint case:-
QI, Appeal Nos. before this 
QI. Petns. aising Canplairt filed 
Permission 
Colrt 
fran~airt 
fa' defamltion 
giwn for filing 
F 
Nos. 
inler Section 
carpairt vidl . 
(s)against 
Sanction Nos. 
i.DMl1ns 
857/2012 
(R<jdeep Sa'desai 
QI. P. Nos. 1874, 
199(2) Cr.PC 
G.O. Rt. 
v. State of AP. &as.) 
1590, 1646 & 1638
before the Coi.t 
No.6581 daied 
ll®a!!lil (Sidhartha Gat.t<m rl 2008 f~e:l befae 
IV, "'1dl. 
27.10.2007 
v. State of AP. & O's.) 
Hgh Cm.fl against 
Mltrc:polltai 
~ 
(9Nati Vastistha CCNo.1/l!J08-
Sessims Ju:!ge, 
G 
& Mr. v. Staie d AP. & O's.) 
reg. telecasting a 
Na:rpally 
~ 
(V.K 
rews prograrrrre in irpa;ing charges 
Shastikuarrrv. Stated AP. & 
~IBN~lish 
lllder Sections 
O's.) 
r>e.w dlamel 
499, 500and 
855/2012 
(AhrredAli 
lllder the c:ai:tion 
120BoflPC 
Shai< & Mr. v. Staie d AP. & 
"20 rrin.rtes-
Ors.) 
Sotrabu:!cin 
85612012 
(Hemender 
Inside Story" on 
i 
Sharrra & Ors. v. State d AP. 
13.5.2007at1730 
&O's.I 
tYS. 
i 
H
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
!<r:!,Ml!l§.l!li~/2!!12 (Guiab 
Crl. P. No. 264 of 
199(2) r/w Sec. 
G.O.RI. 
Kolhari & Ors. v. State of AP. 
2008 before High 
200 Cr. PC before 
No.6582 dated 
&Anr.) 
Court against CC 
!he Court of II 
27.10.2007 
and 85812012 ( Hemender 
No.3/2008-reg. 
Adct. 
Sharma & Ors. v. State a A.P. 
publication ri news 
~tropolttan 
&Ors. 
ttem in Rajasthan 
Sessions Judge, 
Patrika, Sctll"day 
Ncvnpally, 
Edn. dated 
irllJosing charges 
12.5.2007 under 
under Ss. 499, 
B 
the Heading 
500,501, 502 
-
'Varjara Par 
and 120Bof IPC 
Kastha Phanda 
Crl.A.851/2012 (L.ateef 
Crl. P. No.1252 of 
199(2) r/w 
G.O.RI. 
Mohammad Khan v. State ri 
2008 filed before 
Sec.200 Cr.PC 
No.6580and 
A.P. &AIT.) 
High Court against 
before the court 
dated 
cc No.24/2007-
of I Addi. 
27.10.2007 
reg. publication of 
~tropolttan 
c 
news ttems in 
Sessions Judge, 
Siasath Urdu Daily, 
H,Uerabad 
dated 85.2007 
inlJosing 
allegations under 
Sections 499, 
500, 501, 502 
D 
and 120B of IPC 
2. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder: 
A news item on various dates in the year 2007, allegedly 
E making false implication against the second respondent-Rajiv 
Trivedi, Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes and SIT), 
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, with regard to the Sohrabuddin 
encounter case was published by the appellants in the 
respective publications and was telecast on CNN-IBN. A 
F representation was given by the second-respondent to the 
Andhra
Pradesh State Government seeking previous sanction 
under Section 199(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
(in short 'Cr. P. C.') for prosecution of the appellants for offences 
punishable under the provisions referred to supra. Accordingly, 
G the previous sanction was accorded by the State Government 
vide G.O. Rt. Nos. 6581, 6582, 6583 and 6580 dated 
27.10.2007 in favour of the second respondent permitting him 
to file complaints against the appellants through the State 
H Public Prosecutor before the appropriate court of law against
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
17 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
the individuals connected with electronic and print media as A 
herein below: 
a) Siyasat Urdu Daily: Sri Latif Mohammad Khan 
b) CNN-IBN English News Channel 
c) Rajasthan Patrika (Jaipur) Hindi daily 
d) The Deccan Chronicle English Daily 
e) The Etemaad Urdu Daily 
(points (a)-(e) are hereinafter referred to as 
'individual print and electronic media') 
B 
c 
3. One of the above mentioned news items which was 
telecast on CNN-IBN English News channel under the caption D 
"30 minutes- Sohrabuddin the Inside Story" on 13.5.2007 at 
1730 hours, which is subject matter of CC No. 1 of 2008, is 
extracted hereunder for our examination:-
"Police sources say Vanjara and Pandian nabbed 
E 
Kousarbai in Bidar with help from S.P. Rajiv Trivedi of 
the Hyderabad Special Investigation Unit. ........ Rajiv 
Trivedi provided cars with fake number plates in which 
Sohrabuddin was brought to Ahmadabad and then killed 
in a fake encounter." 
F 
4. Pursuant to the above said sanction accorded by the 
State Government of Andhra Pradesh, the criminal proceedings 
were initiated by the State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 
State of Andhra Pradesh against the appellants. The State of G 
Andhra Pradesh represented by the State Public Prosecutor 
filed the complaints against the accused-appellants for the 
offences referred to supra. The Additional Metropolitan 
Sessions Judge bef,ore whom complaints were
instituted by 
the State Public Prosecutor, has taken the cognizance of the H
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A offences alleged against the appellants and passed orders 
summoning them to appear before the Court for further 
proceedings in the respective cases. 
5. Aggrieved by the summoning orders passed by the 
s Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in C.C. No. 27 of 
2007, C.C. NO. 3 of 2007, and C.C. No.24 of 2007, the 
appellants filed Crl. P. Nos. 7592 of 2007, 264 of 2008 and 
1252 of 2008 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High. 
Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking to quash the same, urging 
C various legal contentions. 
6. The High Court after hearing all the above said petitions 
together, adverting to the previous sanction order accorded in 
favour of respondent No. 2 by the State Government under 
D Section 199(4)(b) of the Cr.P.C., permitting the State Public 
Prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings for the offences 
alleged against the appellants referred to supra and after 
dealing with the contentions with regard to the legality and 
validity of the said sanction orders read with the Rules and 
E adverting to various judgments of this Court, allowed only 
Criminal Petition No. 7592 of 2007 (M.J. Akbar &Anr. v. The 
State of AP.) and dismissed all other criminal petitions holding 
that the news telecast in th~ eiectronic media by CNN-IBN and 
other news items published in various newspapers of the 
F appellants per se are integrally connected with the official 
discharge of duties of the second respondent and held
that 
whether the same amounts to defamatory, libel or scandalous 
statements is a matter that has to be decided on the evidence 
to be adduced by the parties. The High Court further held that 
G in the absence of any privilege to the broadcaster on par with 
Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, 
the appellants cannot claim to quash the criminal proceedings 
initiated against them and there was no merit to quash the 
H said criminal proceedings against the appellants. Aggrieved
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
19 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
by the common order of the High Court, these appeals are A 
filed by the appellants raising certain substantial questions of 
law for consideration of this Court. 
7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar 
' 
appearing on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. B 
850, 852, 853, 855, 856, 857 of2012 has contended thatthe 
State Public Prosecutor cannot make a complaint under 
Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. against an individual in respect of 
whom no sanction has been accorded by the State 
Government as required under Section 199( 4) of the Cr. P. C. 
C 
8. It is further contended by him on behalf of the appellants 
that they have been summoned on the complaint instituted by 
the State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the second respondent 
on the basis of the previous sanction order accorded by the o 
State Government under Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C. for 
prosecuting the individual electronic and print media involved 
in the case on hand and not for the prosecution of any named 
individual in the said sanction order and therefore, there is no 
• application of mind on the part of the State Government while E 
according the previous sanction orders in favour of the second 
respondent to initiate criminal proceedings under the said 
provisions referred to supra against the appellants herein. 
9. It is further contended on behalf of the appellants that F 
the High Court has erred in
dismissing the criminal petitions 
of the appellants and not quashing the criminal proceedings 
against the orders of summons passed by the Additional 
Metropolitan Sessions Judge after taking cognizance of the 
complaints filed by the public prosecutor against the appellants, G 
which are not maintainable in law. It is contended by him that 
the High Court has also not considered the relevant fact that 
telecasting the story by the appellant is not in connection with 
discharge of public functions of the second respondent being 
a public servant and. this aspect of the matter has not been H
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A dealt with by the High Court thereby, it has rendered the findings 
as erroneous in law and therefore, the same are liable to be 
set aside. 
10. Further, it is contended by him that the High Court has 
B failed to take into consideration an important aspect of the 
matter namely, the State Government while examining the 
representation submitted by the second respondent for 
according previous sanction as required under Section 199(4) 
of the Cr.P.C. and All India Services (Conduct) Rules of 1968, 
C in his favour authorising the State Public Prosecutor to initiate 
criminal proceedings against the appellants does not reflect 
application of mind on the part of the State Government as 
they have failed to find out whether or not the comments made 
against the second respondent by the individual electronic and 
D print media have got content which are defamatory, scandalous 
or libellous and whether the same warrant the State 
Government to permit such institution of criminal proceedings 
against the appellants under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860. Therefore, it is contended that the above explained 
E reasons would show lack of application of mind on the part of 
the State Government to the facts presented to it and therefore, 
the impugned sanction order accorded by it in favour of the 
second respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against 
F the appellants under the provisions of Cr.P.C. referred to supra 
is
vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside. 
11. Further, it is contended by the learned senior counsel 
that the High Court has also failed to take into consideration 
another relevant fact that the criminal complaints instituted by 
G respondent No. 1-State Government against the appellants, 
is silent about their role in committing the alleged offence of 
telecasting/publishing comments and allegations against the 
second respondent which are allegedly defamatory, libellous 
H and scandalous.
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
21 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
12. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that A 
the High Court has failed to appreciate that to arraign the 
appellants as the accused, the complainant ought to have 
made positive averments against them in the complaints and 
attributed a specific role to each one of them in committing 
the alleged offence, warranting initiation of criminal B 
proceedings, the same has not been done, therefore, the 
summoning order issued by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge 
and the complaints filed against the appellants by the State 
Public Prosecutor are not sustainable in law and are liable to 
be quashed. The learned senior counsel in support of his C 
contentions has placed reliance upon the following judgments 
of this Court in the cases of Gour Chandra Rout & Anr. v. 
The Public Prosecutor, Cuttack1, P.C. Joshi & Anr. v. The 
State of Uttar Pradesh2, Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan D 
v. State of Gujarat1 -and Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh4. 
13. Further, the learned senior counsel placing reliance 
upon Section 196(2) of Cr.P.C. contended that a specific 
sanction order is required to prosecute in respect of each 
person to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 120-8 E 
of l.P.C., the same has not been obtained by the second 
respondent. In support of this contention he placed reliance 
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Lal v. 
The State of Punjab5. 
F 
14.
Mr.AruneshwarGupta, the learned counsel appearing 
for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 854 and 858 of 
2012, reiterated the aforesaid legal submissions made by Mr. 
Guru Krishna Kumar, the learned senior counsel on behalf of 
the appellants referred to supra.' It is further contended by him G 
in Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2012 that it is evident from the 
1 AIR1963 SC 1198 
2 AIR 1961SC387 
3 (1997) 1 sec 622 
4 (2013) 15 sec 624 / 2013 SCALE 513 
5AIR 1967SC1590 
H
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A notice dated 13.8.2007 that the sanction for the prosecution 
was sought against the Editor, News Reporter and Printer and 
Publisher of Rajasthan Patrika newspaper, however, no 
sanction was sought against the Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in 
Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2012 who are the Editor in Chief, 
B Advisor and printer and publisher of the said newspaper. After 
perusal of all the documents and material on record, the State 
Government granted sanction only against the Editor of 
Rajasthan Patrika Newspaper (the appellant in Criminal 
Appeal No. 858 of 2012) by its order dated 27.10.2007, after 
C proper application of mind. The application for grant of sanction 
against appellant Nos.1-3 who are the Editor in Chief, Advisor 
and Printer and Publisher was specifically rejected by the State 
Government, therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated 
D against them is not valid in law. 
15. It is further contended by him that since the 
respondents have not challenged the sanction accorded by 
the State Government dated 27.10.2007, authorising the 
criminal proceedings against the Editor and rejecting grant of 
E sanction order against appellant Nos.1-3 in Cr1. Appeal No.854 
of 2012, the same has become final, therefore, the public 
prosecutor has no authority to file any criminal complaint 
against the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.854of2012 who 
F are the Editor-in-Chief, Advisor and Printer and Publisher of 
Rajasthan
Patrika. He contended that what cannot be derived 
directly cannot be obtained indirectly by the process of court 
proceedings. He further placed reliance on the decision of this 
Court in the case of Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and Anr.6, 
G contending that in the absence of sanction to prosecute a 
named person, the public prosecutor cannot file a complaint 
and the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to judicially review the 
sanction order and issue summons against those persons 
whose name do not specifically appear as accused in the order 
H 
6 AIR 1979 SC 381
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
23 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
of sanction accorded by the State Government. It is further A 
contended that this aspect of the matter has not at all been 
considered by the High Court even though the legal submission 
was made in this regard before it. 
16. Both the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants s 
contended that there must be valid and cogent material before 
the State Government for according previous sanction in favour 
of the second respondent permitting him to initiate criminal 
proceedings against the appellants. It is contended by them 
. that the State Government should have examined the facts, C 
allegations and names of the accused and then should have 
reasonably applied its mind to conclude whether or not the 
reputation of the second respondent while discharging his 
public function as a public servant was intended to be harmed. 
Only after such reasonable application of mind by the State D 
Government to the facts placed before it, the sanction can be 
accorded by it in favour of the second respondent to initiate 
criminal proceedings and only then the court of sessions shall 
take cognizance of such offence in the criminal proceedings 
initiated against the appellants. This aspect of the matter has E 
not been considered by the learned Judge of the High Court 
while passing the impugned Judgment. Therefore, the 
impugned judgment and order is vitiated in law and liable to 
be set aside. 
F 
17. It
is further urged by the learned counsel on behalf of 
the appellants that the High Court has erroneously held that 
under the scheme of Section 199 of the Cr. P. C., the previous 
sanction is required against all such persons who have 
allegedly committed the offence and not necessarily against G 
specific individuals in order to prosecute them for the offences 
committed against a person in respect of his conduct in the 
discharge of his public functions who at that time was a public 
servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or H
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A State. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the appellants in 
CriminalAppeal No. 858 of2012 thatthe criminal proceedings 
initiated by the first respondent on behalf of the second 
respondent should have been confined to only against those 
persons named in the Government sanction order for the 
B offences referred to supra. 
18. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, the learned counsel for the 
appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.854 and 858 of 2012 further 
contended that several investigations were carried out 
C pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the Sohrabuddin 
case and on 12.5.2007, a report was submitted by Ms. Johri 
which finds reference in judgment of this Court in the case of 
Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 7• The 
fact of the investigation by the CBI in Sohrabuddin's case was 
D in public domain and ifthat is published in the print media by 
the appellant (in Crl. A. Nos. 854 & 858 of 2012), the same 
cannot be made the basis of any defamation as it has referred 
to the judgment in the aforesaid case which is a public record. 
E 
19. It is also further contended by him that Rajasthan 
Patrika is a subscriber of United News of India (UNI) which is 
one of the largest News Agencies in India, providing news to 
several news papers in India. The UNI published and 
broadcastthe news item dated 12.05.2007 and the appellants 
F in Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2012, being the Editor of 
Rajasthan Patrika got the
same translated in Hindi and 
published it in their news paper which is allegedly defamatory 
to the second respondent. It is further contended by him that 
United News of India is the source and first broadcaster of the 
G alleged defamatory news to its subscribers including the 
newspaper for which the appellant is the Editor, who acted 
and published in bona fide the alleged offending news believing 
it to be true and correct. Therefore, in the absence of any 
H 
7 201 o (2) sec 200
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
25 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] · 
prosecution of UNI, the appellant cannot be prosecuted for the A 
offence of defamation as the same is covered under the 
Explanatior, 3 of Section 499 of l.P.C. 
20. It is further contended that freedom of expression 
demands that criminal defamation in relation to publication of B 
news items and articles may not be invoked in all the cases 
but should be limited to Oflly exceptional cases to redress the 
immediate harm done to the reputation of the individuals who 
have been defamed and shall not be allowed to be used as 
remedy to serve the ulterior goal as the same will have a C 
negative and damaging effect on the freedom of expression 
guaranteed to the press. 
21. It is further contended by him that Section 499of l.P.C. 
defines the offence of defamation as spoken or written, Section o 
501 of l.P.C. is for defamatory printing or engraving of 
defamatory matter and Section 502 of l.P.C. is for sale of printed 
or engraved substances containing defamatory material. 
Therefore, Section 499 of l.P.C. would cover the Editor while 
Section 501 will cover the Publisher and Printer and Section E 
502 of l.P.C. covers the seller.As the offences mentioned under 
Sections 501 and 502 of l.P.C. are specifically distinct offences 
which are against the Publisher and the Seller, therefore, the 
previous sanction order was granted in favour of the second 
respondent against the Editor of the
Newspapers and rejected 
F 
against the Printer and Publisher. Therefore, in these appeals, 
the appellants cannot be tried for the offences under Section 
499, 501, 502 of l.P.C. with the aid of Section 120-B of l.P.C. 
as the liability of defamation is only limited to the Editor. 
G 
22. In CriminalAppeal No. 851 of2Q12, Mr.Abhimanue 
Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing for appellant-Mr. 
Lateef Mohd. Khan, General Secretary, Civil Liberties 
Monitoring Committee, who has allegedly made certain false· 
and baseless statements against the second respondent under H
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A the news item "Rajiv Trivedi-Hyderabad Ka Vanjara" "Fauri 
Bharkhast Kame Ka Mutalika" published on 8.5.2007 in Siyasat 
Urdu Daily, contended thatthe appellant is neither the Publisher 
nor the Seller of the said Urdu Daily, therefore, one would 
believe that he made such statements on the basis of the 
B information through electronic and print media. It is therefore, 
contended that in view of the nature of the allegations against 
the second respondent, the appellant who is the Secretary of 
the Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee made the above 
statements published in Siyasat Urdu Daily to make the public 
C aware of the same. The alleged offences are not attracted 
against him as the allegations in the complaint do not constitute 
any of the offences under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 120-B 
of l.P. C. The learned counsel questioned the legality and validity 
D of previous sanction accorded by the State Government in 
favour of the second respondent to prosecute the appellant in 
the said appeal by placing reliance on the decisions of this 
Court in the cases of Kartar Singh & Ors. v. The State of 
Punjab8 and R. Rajagopal & Anr. v. State of T.N. & Ors. 9 
E 
23. On the other hand, Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, the 
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State has 
sought to justify the sanction order authorising the Public 
Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the 
F appellants herein, the same was
accorded after applying its 
mind to the facts stated in the representation given by the 
second respondent that the statements telecast and published 
in the electronic and print media by the appellants were 
defamatory and affected his reputation and the same were in 
G connection with the discharge of his public functions as an IPS 
Officer. The State Government after applying its mind was 
satisfied that the reputation of the second respondent was 
harmed by printing and telecasting the defamatory statements 
by the appellants herein. Therefore, it accorded the sanction 
H 
8 AIR 1956 SC 541 : 1956 SCR 476 
9 (1994) 6 sec 632
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
27 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
order under Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C. in favour of the second 'A 
respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against the 
appellant, which provision does not speak of mentioning the 
names against whom the criminal prosecution has to be 
instituted by the State Public Prosecutor. 
B 
24. He has further contended that the learned Additional 
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after applying his mind with 
regard to the allegations made against the appellants took 
cognizance of the matter and issued order of summons to the 
appellants to appear before the sessions court with their C 
respective counter to the criminal proceedings initiated against 
them. The same was stalled by the appellants herein by 
initiating proceedings before the High Court and this Court. It 
is contended by him that the challenge before the High Court 
has been rightly rejected after dealing with each one of the D 
rival legal contentions urged in the Criminal Petitions filed by 
the appellants, which do not warrant interference by this Court 
in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, as the appellants are 
required to face the trial in the proceedings initiated against 
them by respondent No. 1-the State Government._ 
E 
25. Mr. Pappu Nageshwar Rao, the learned counsel 
appearing for the second respondent, sought to justify the 
sanction accorded in favour of the second respondent by 
drawing our attention to the provisions
of Sections 132, 188, F 
196, 197, 199 of Cr.P.C. He sought to distinguish previous 
sanction provided under Section 194 and placed reliance upon 
the judgments of various High Courts in the cases of Master 
Girdhari Lal, Printer & Publisher of Naya Bharat v. The 
State10, Pachha/loor Noohu v. Public Prosecutor11, Sant G 
Lal v. Krishan Lal12 and B. Basavalingappa and Anr. v. V. 
Narasimhan13 in support of the proposition of law that previous 
10 1969 CriLJ P&H 1316 
11 1975 CriLJ Kerala 1304 
12 1976 CriLJ Delhi 215 
13 1974 CriLJ Karnataka 66 
H
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A sanction order by the State Government can be granted under 
Section 1988 (3)(a)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, 
by any Secretary or authorisation of the Government in favour 
of a public servant to prosecute the persons who have 
committed offences of defamation against him. He further 
B placed reliance upon Section 308 proviso 2 and Section 473 
of Cr.P.C., regarding the limitation for sanction and Section 
484 of Cr.P.C. regarding sanction saving clause to justify that 
the sanction accorded by the State Government to prosecute 
the appellants herein is perfectly legal and valid. He therefore 
C urged that in vi:3W of the above, the sanction accorded by the 
State Government in favour of second respondent cannot be 
found fault with by the appellants and prayed for dismissal of 
these appeals. 
D 
26. We have heard the rival legal contentions urged on 
behalf of learned counsel for both the parties and answer the 
same by assigning the following reasons. 
With regard to the contention urged by learned senior 
E counsel Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar on behalf of the appellants in 
Criminal Appeal No.857of2012 and connected appeals that 
the High Court has not considered all the issues raised before 
it in the criminal petitions filed by the appellants seeking for 
quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them, 
F is wholly untenable in law for the reason that from perusal of 
the impugned order of the High
Court, it is clear that the sanction 
was accorded by the State Government under the relevant 
Government order in favour of the second respondent. On 
examining the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, 
G the previous sanction is accorded to launch necessary 
prosecution against the CNN-IBN channel, Siyasat Urdu Daily: 
Sri Latif Mohammad Khan, Rajasthan Patrika (Jaipur) Hindi 
daily, Deccan Chronicle English Daily and Etemaad Urdu Daily. 
H By careful reading of the provision under Section 199 of Cr. P. C.,
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
29 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
read with the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, it A 
provides that previous 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 alleged B 
transaction. Therefore, in the case on hand, when the previous 
sanction was accorded by the State Government against those 
who were responsible for the telecasVpublication of the news 
both in electronic and print media which according to the 
second respondent damaged his reputation, it is not necessary C 
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 item 
in the electronic and print media and also when the names of D 
the said electronic and print media have already been 
mentioned in the said sanction order. Therefore, there is no 
merit in the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that 
their names have not been specifically mentioned in the said 
sanction order. The said contention is untenable in law and E 
therefore, liable to be rejected. The same is accordingly 
rejected. 
27. Further, the reliance placed by the learned counsel on 
behalf of the appellants upon the judgments of this Court F
referred to supra while according sanction in favour of the 
second respondent to initiate the criminal proceedings against 
the appellants the State Government has not applied its mind, 
this contention is also wholly untenable in law as the exercise 
of power by the State Government under Section 199 of Cr.P.C. G 
is in the administrative and ministerial capacity and according 
of such sanction is as per the subjective satisfaction on the 
part of the State Government. The learned senior counsel on 
"behalf of the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgments 
of this Court in the cases of Gour Chandra Rout & Anr. v. 
H
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A The Public Prosecutor, P.C. Joshi & Anr. v. The State of 
Uttar Pradesh and Mansukhlal Vitha/das Chauhan v. State 
of Gujarat (all referred to supra). With regard to the above 
referred cases, the first two cases have not dealt with the 
exercise of power under Section 199 of Cr.P.C., except stating 
B the ministerial exercise of power by the State Government while 
exercising its power under Section 1988 (3)(a) of Cr.P.C, 1898. 
In so far as the third case referred to supra upon which the 
reliance placed upon by the learned senior counsel on behalf 
of the appellants, the same is in relation to the previous 
C sanction to be accorded by the State Government for the 
purpose of prosecution underthe provisions of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act. Therefore, none of the above cases on which 
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on behalf of 
0 the appellants have any relevance to the fact situation on hand. 
28. Having regard to the scheme of the Protection of Civil 
Rights Act, 1955, the complainant-second respondent during 
the relevant point of time was the Police Officer in the services 
of the State Government and he cannot prosecute the 
E appellants in a court of law without obtaining previous sanction 
from the State Government as contemplated under the 
aforesaid provisions ofCr.P.C. Therefore, in order to prosecute 
the appellants, the second respondent made a representation 
F to the State Government along
with a petition with regard to 
initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellants under 
the provisions referred to supra in respect of which he has 
sought the sanction of the State Government. On appreciation 
of the same, the State Government in exercise of its 
G administrative powers appreciated the facts of the matter, 
rightly applied :ts mind and accorded the sanction under 
Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C. in favour of the second respondent 
to initiate criminal proceedings under the provisions referred 
to supra against the appellants. The said sanction was 
H accorded by the State Government after appreciating that the
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OFANDHRA 
31 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
statements telecast/published by the appellants in the A 
electronic and print media as well as the statement given by 
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 853 of2012 in the Urdu 
Daily on the basis of which the news is published by its Editor, 
which are all statements defaming the second respondent while 
he was discharging his public function as a public servant. B 
Therefore, the contention on behalf of the appellants that there 
was no application of mind on the part of the State Government 
in according the said sanction is wholly untenable in law, liable 
to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. 
c 
29. Further, the contention urged by the appellants' counsel 
placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgements that the act of 
the 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 D 
functions, hence, the said statement in the news item allegedly 
defaming the second respondent being telecast and published 
in electronic and print media do not attract Section 199 of 
Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the appellants 
that the sanction accorded by the State Government is beyond E 
its jurisdiction as the said act of aiding the Gujarat Police is an 
independent act and it is not in relation to the discharge of 
public functions of the second
respondent though he, at that 
relevant point of time, was discharging his public functions.· F 
This contention on behalf of the appellants is also wholly 
untenable in law, for the reason that determining the q~estion 
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 G 
determined by regular trial after examining the facts, . 
circumstances and evidence on record. 
30. The reliance placed upon the judgment of this Court in 
the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh (supra), contending that H
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A the fact of the investigation by the CBI in Sohrabuddin's case 
was the subject matter before this Court at para 2 of the 
judgment in the case referred to supra, therefore, by publishing 
the same in the newspaper by the appellants (in Crl. A. Nos. 
854 & 858 of 2012) cannot be made the basis of any 
B defamation as the said news item was published after referring 
to the aforesaid judgment which is a public record. This 
contention urged on behalf of the appellants is wholly untenable 
in law for the reason that at para 2 of the said judgment of this 
Court in the above referred case is only with regard to the facts 
C of that case, whereas, the allegations made against the 
appellants herein are for publishing and telecasting defamatory 
statements against the second respondent, which question of 
fact has to be examined, considered and answered only after 
0 regular trial proceedings before the learned Additional 
Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Therefore, the above contention 
urged in this regard is wholly untenable and the same is rejected. 
31. Further, the learned counsel in Criminal Appeal Nos. 
854 and 858 of 2012, plqced reliance upon the judgment of 
E this Court in the case of Urmila Devi (supra), in support of the 
proposition of law that only the Editor-In-Chief is responsible 
for the telecast or publication of the alleged defamatory 
statements against whom the sanction order is accorded and 
F that there is no
sanction order accorded to initiate prosecution 
against others. Further, the contention on behalf of the 
appellants that there must be specific mention of persons in 
the sanction order against whom prosecution can be launched 
and in the absence of the same, a single sanction order 
G accorded by the State Government against all the other 
appellants in the connected appeals amounts to giving a wider 
interpretation of the provision under Section 199(4) of Cr.P. C., 
which is not the object of the aforesaid provision under the 
Cr.P.C. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by 
H the High Court; therefore, impugned order is vitiated in law
RAJDEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
33 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
and is contrary to the provisions of Section 199(4) of the Cr.PC. A 
32. By careful readin,g of Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C., it 
does not indicate that in order to initiate criminal proceedings 
against the accused, the public servant needs to obtain 
sanction from the State Government in respect of each one of B 
l~t. 
the persons against whom the same transaction of offence is 
alleged and the names of the accused are required to be 
mentioned specifically in the sanction order accorded by the 
State Government. It is sufficient if one sanction is accorded 
to prosecute all the concerned persons involved in that C 
occurrence, thus, the contention on behalf of the appellants in 
this regard is also liable to be rejected and is accordingly 
rejected. 
33. The contention urged by the learned counsel Mr. 
D 
Abhimanue Shrestha on behalf of the appellants in Criminal 
Appeal No.851 of2012 is also untenable in law for the reasons 
stated that the appellant has made a statement on the basis 
of the news items telecasUpublished in electronic and print 
media. The same cannot be accepfei::I by us for the reason 
E 
that it is a matter that has to be examined by the trial court 
after recording the findings of fact on the basis of valid and 
cogent evidence to be adduced by the State Public Prosecutor 
on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, there is no substance 
in the said contention urged on behalf
of the appellants and 
F 
the same is rejected. 
34. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second 
respondent rightly sought to justify the findings and reasons of 
the High Court in its impugned judgment, placing reliance on G 
Sections 132, 188, 196, 197 and 19'9 of Cr.PC., inter alia 
contending that for prosecution of an accused in the case of 
defamation of a public servant, sanction can be accorded 
under the old Section 198B(3b) of Cr.P.C.,1898, by any 
Secretary or authorisation by the Government. He has also H
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A placed reliance upon Section 2U of Cr.P.C. which defines a 
Public Prosecutor as any person appointed under Section 24 
and included any person acting under the directions of a Public 
Prosecutor. The learned counsel on behalf of the second 
respondent has rightly justified that the sanction accorded by 
B the State Government to prosecute the appellants is perfectly 
legal and valid by placing reliance on Section 308 proviso 2, 
Section 473 of Cr.P.C. regarding the limitation for sanction 
and Section 484 of Cr.PC. The learned counsel has also rightly 
placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of Master 
C Girdhari Lal, Printer & Publisher of Naya Bharat v. The 
State, PachhalloorNoohuv. Public Prosecutor and Sant 
Lal v. Krishan Lal and B. Basavalingappa and Anr. v. 
Narasimhan all referred to supra. Therefore, the submission 
0 
made by him is well founded and the same must be accepted. 
35. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants by 
placing reliance on Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of 
India contended that the initiation and continuance of the 
criminal proceedings in the present cases hinder and hamper 
E the very freedom of press which is most precious and constitute 
an affront to the aforesaid provisions under the Constitution of 
India. The said contention has been rightly rebutted by the 
learned counsel on behalf of the respondents by strongly urging 
F that the reputation of an individual is
also equally important 
and that the said aspect of the matter must be considered 
after adducing cogent and valid evidence on record by the 
Public Prosecutor before the learned trial Judge who shall then 
appreciate the same and record his findings on merits of the 
G case. 
36. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion 
that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh in rejecting the petitions for quashing the 
H initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellants under

RAJ DEEP SARDESAI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
35 
PRADESH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is perfectly legal and valid, the same A 
does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its 
appellate jurisdiction as there is no substantial question of law 
framed in the appeals nor is there any miscarriage of justice 
for the appellants to interfere with at this stage. In our considered 
view, having regard to the nature of the complaint, the B 
respondents are required to prove the allegations against the 
appellants by adducing valid and cogent evidence, the same 
has to be considered by the trial court and accordingly record 
the findings on the merits of the case. The appeals are devoid· 
of merit, liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. C 
The orders granting stay offurther proceedings before the trial 
court shall stand vacated. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals dismissed. 
D