This is a petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 19 of 1979 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madras.


2. An interesting question arises in this petition as to whether Section 199(5) Cr.P.C., which lays down that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence of defamation against the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory, or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant, unless the complaint by the Public Prosecutor is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, is governed by Section 470 Cr.P.C. which provides for exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation in certain cases.


3. The City Public Prosecutor has filed the above prosecution against the petitioner herein, who is the Editor and Publisher of the Tamil Weekly 'Ina Murasu' for publication in his weekly dated 23-9-1978 of some defamatory news against Thiru Ponn Paramaguru, the then Commissioner of Police, Madras. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 23-9-1978 when the publication was made; but the complaint has been filed by the Public Prosecutor on 25-6-1979, after more than six months from the date of the offence. It is contended by the Advocate General appearing for the respondent that an application for sanction was made to the Government on 30-9-1978 and the Government accorded sanction only on 15-3-1979, and when this period is excluded, the complaint is in time. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 470 Cr.P.C. which provides for the exclusion of time in certain cases in computing the period of limitation, has no application to prosecution laid by the Public Prosecutor for the offence of defamation against the President of India and the other authorities mentioned in Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. and the failure to institute the complaint within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, is a total bar to the prosecution. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of the Andhra High Court in Smt. Rekha Varma v. Public Prosecutor, 1982 Mad LJ (Cri) 159 where it has been held that S. 473 Cr.P.C. providing for extension of period of limitation in certain cases has no application in such a case where a complaint is laid for defamation by the Public Prosecutor under S. 199(2) Cr.P.C.


4. Chapter XIV Cr.P.C. which consists of Sections 190 to 199 deals with 'conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings'. S. 193 in the said Chapter lays down that except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code S. 199, which deals with prosecution for defamation, lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of defamation except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. But exception to these two provisions of law is made in Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. whereby when any offence of defamation is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union Territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, the public Prosecutor may make a complaint in writing before a Court of Session as a Court of original jurisdiction. To this enabling provision, two conditions are annexed viz.


(1) The complaint by the Public Prosecutor must be with the previous sanction of the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be. (vide - sub-section (4) of S. 199); and


(2) The complaint by the Public Prosecutor must be made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (Vide sub-section (5) of Section 199)


5. Sub-section (5) of S. 199, with which we are now concerned runs thus -

"No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed." *


6. Chapter XXXVI Cr.P.C. which consists of Sections 467 to 473, deals with 'Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences'. Section 468 prescribes the period of limitation for certain offences, viz. -


(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;


(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; and


(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years


Section 470 provides for exclusion of time in certain cases in computing the period of limitation Sub-section (3) of S. 470 Cr.P.C. which is relevant for our purpose reads thus -


"Where notice of prosecution for an offence has been given, or where, under any law for the time being in force, the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence, then, in computing the period of limitation, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded." *


We have now to see whether S. 199(5) Cr.P.C. is controlled by S. 470(3) of the said Code.


7. As already pointed out, the provision contained in S. 199(2) Cr.P.C. which enables the Public Prosecutor to file a complaint in the Court of Session as a Court of original criminal jurisdiction when an offence of defamation is committed against the President of India or the other authorities mentioned therein, is an exception to the general rule that the Court of Session shall not take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code and that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of defamation except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. This enabling provision is subject to two conditions, viz., the complaint by the Public Prosecutor must be with the previous sanction of the Government and the complaint must be filed within six months from the date on which the offence is committed. It is obvious that S. 199(5) which prohibits any Court of Session taking cognizance of an offence of defamation, unless the complaint by the Public Prosecutor is made within six months from the date of the offence, does not prescribe a period of limitation, but lays down a condition precedent to the institution of prosecution by the Public Prosecutor, or to quote the language of the Chapter 'a condition requisite for initiation of proceedings'. Hence, neither the provision of S. 470, which provides for exclusion of time in certain cases in computing the period of limitation, nor the provisions of S. 473 which provides for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases applies to S. 199(5) Cr.P.C. which lays down not a period of limitation, but a condition precedent.


8. There is also inherent evidence in Chapter XXXVI Cr.P.C., dealing with limitation, to show that the provision of S. 470 providing for exclusion of time in certain cases and the provision of S. 473 providing for extension of period of limitation in certain cases, apply only to cases for which limitation has been prescribed in S. 468 of the Code. Section 467 of the Code defines 'period of limitation', as the period specified in S. 468, for taking cognizance of an offence and hence the term has reference only to the period fixed under S. 468 of the Code. No doubt, the definition in S. 467 is subject to the qualification 'unless the context otherwise requires'. But the context does not warrant the term 'period of limitation' to be interpreted in such a way as to bring within its ambit the condition precedent imposed in S. 199(5) Cr.P.C. for the institution of a

complaint by the Public Prosecutor for the commission of the offence of defamation against the President of India or the other authorities mentioned in S. 199(2) of the Code in the Court of Session as a Court of original criminal jurisdiction. 9. I, therefore, hold that Section 199(5) Cr.P.C. is not controlled by S. 470 of the Code and the respondent Public Prosecutor is not entitled to invoke the provision of S. 470(3) of the Code and claim exclusion of the time required for obtaining sanction of the Government. The complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor is, therefore, hit by sub-section (5) of Section 199 and is not cognizable by the Court of Session. The prosecution launched by the Public Prosecutor must, therefore, fail. 10. In the result the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 19 of 1979 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, are quashed.