LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajdeep Sardesai v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 2012)Decided 14 May 2015
Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 2012
Justice V. Gopala Gowda · Justice C. Nagappan

Background

Journalists and media houses (including CNN-IBN journalist Rajdeep Sardesai) were prosecuted for defamation in Andhra Pradesh after broadcasting/publishing reports on the Sohrabuddin Sheikh "fake encounter" case that named a senior police officer. The State Government had sanctioned the State Public Prosecutor under Section 199(4) Cr.P.C. to file defamation complaints on the officer's behalf, and a trial court took cognizance and summoned the appellants. The appellants sought to quash these proceedings before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing the sanction was invalid and the reporting was not connected to the officer's official duties; the High Court dismissed all but one of their petitions.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the sanction accorded by the State Government was validly granted and that the news broadcast/publication was integrally connected with the discharge of the public servant's official duties, so Section 199(2)/(4) Cr.P.C. applied. It held that whether the statements were actually defamatory, libellous or privileged was a factual question to be proved by evidence before the trial court, not decided at the quashing stage, and that the appellants had no absolute privilege (unlike the specific statutory privilege under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, which does not extend to broadcasters). Finding no substantial question of law or miscarriage of justice, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings and dismissed all the appeals, vacating the stay of the trial court proceedings.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal defamation complaint sanctioned on behalf of a public servant under Section 199(4) Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the sanction process was procedurally imperfect or that the reporting concerned the officer's conduct: courts leave the truth/defence of such allegations to be tested through evidence at trial rather than short-circuiting the case at the pre-trial stage.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case