In a revision application filed before the Calcutta High Court regarding a question of law related to Section 222(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray found no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the Judge took cognizance of the offence committed by the present applicant and the same was affirmed.
An author wrote a book that was published in 2015. The book mentioned some details of the personal life of the present Chief Minister of West Bengal, including a statement that she had married someone clandestinely. The book presented the allegations as undisclosed facts about the Chief Minister, and the author sought to publicize that the Chief Minister’s claim to be an unmarried woman was false. The author also disclosed that on 30-04-2012, he wrote a letter requesting information directly from the Chief Minister.
The said book was neither banned nor was its publication restricted by any government order. The applicant, an advocate and politician, uploaded a few pages of the book on social media platforms and made comments about the Chief Minister’s personal life on television networks. A complaint was filed for the commission of offences under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), availing the privilege of being a Minister as per Section 222(2), BNSS, after obtaining statutory sanction.
In the case regarding the complaint, the Judge took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 356(2) of BNS and ordered the issuance of summons.
The Court noted that the summons was directed to be issued after allowing the applicant to be heard and that the mens rea of the applicant to malign the Chief Minister was clear and palpable. The decision taken in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 was referred by the Court while stating that the accused could file an application for quashing under Section 528 of BNSS in appropriate cases. Hence, the present petition was held to be maintainable.
The Court said that the author referred to the behaviour of the Chief Minister during the oath-taking ceremony to show that she had a deep and intimate relationship with the person mentioned in the book as the said person was not only present in the ceremony through her consent but also in her chamber in the Writer’s building which also could not have been possible without the Chief Minister’s permission. It was further said that to prove that the Chief Minister was acting beyond her official duties while being in her office is upon the person who claims so.
The Court stated that any meeting with any person in the office chambers is deemed to have been arranged for an official purpose unless the contrary is proved. The Court referred to various cases, and it was said that republication of defamatory imputations makes a person liable in the same manner as the author. Further, it was said that even if no action is taken when the original material is published, the same cannot be a ground for the subsequent publisher, and he is under a legal duty to justify his action.
It was stated that even though the author had expressly mentioned that nobody could reproduce his work without his permission, no relevant material was placed on the record by the appellant regarding such permission obtained.
The Court said that the complaint lodged by the Public Prosecutor under Section 222(2), CrPC was allowed subject to certain conditions. It was said that without scrutinizing relevant evidence, it cannot be said that the cognizance of offence taken by the Judge was bad in law.
Thus, the Court found no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order and affirmed the same.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Mr. Samrat Mondal
For State – Mr. Debasish Roy, Mr. Rudradipta Nandy
