ORDER
B.P. Katakey, J.
1. These revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the learned Trial Court in the connected criminal proceedings, rejecting the applications filed by the accused persons under Section 309, Cr. P. C. praying for stay of such criminal proceedings on the ground of pendency of the Civil suits, arising out of the alleged defamatory statement published in the newspapers as well as the editorial written thereon. Since in all the revision petitions the same question of law, based on identical facts, is involved, those are taken up for hearing and disposal together, as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor, West Tripura, filed three complaint petitions registered and numbered as C. R. Case No. 1/05, 2/05 and 3/05 under Sub-section (2) of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura at Agartala alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500/501 of the Indian Penal Code for making false and defamatory statement and for printing and publishing the same as well as for writing editorial, against a Cabinet Minister being the Minister-in-Charge of Finance, Government of Tripura in two local daily published from Agartala, namely, 'Syandan Patrika' and 'Dainik Sambad' on 27th and 28th July 2005. In C. R. Case No. 1/2005 the petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 50 of 2007 alongwith the pro forma respondent, Shri Ratan Lal Nath are arrayed as accused persons. In C. R Case No. 2/2005 the petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 49 of 2007 are the accused. The learned Sessions Judge on 18-8-2005 took cognizance in all the said complaint cases and transferred the said proceedings to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala for disposal, fixing 9-9-2005 for examination of the complainant. In due course of time the present revision petitioners on receipt of the process, entered appearance in the said proceedings. On or about the same time of filing of the criminal proceeding by the learned Public Prosecutor, two suits being Money Suit Nos. 17/2005 and 18/2005 are filed by Shri Badal Choudhury, the Minister-in-Charge of Finance, against whom the alleged defamatory statement has been made and published in the newspapers, claiming damages of Rs. 3.00 crores against the present petitioners and the other accused person as defendants, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura at Agartala. The present petitioners have also contested the said civil proceeding by filing written statements. In the said criminal proceedings the present petitioners, thereafter, filed applications under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for stay further proceeding in the said criminal cases till disposal of the Money Suits, contending inter alia that the decision that may be rendered in the Civil Suits between the parties would conclusively decide the question to be gone into in the criminal proceeding and hence it is not permissible to allow both the proceedings to proceed simultaneously being based on the same subject matter, and, if the same is allowed to happen, it would cause serious prejudice to them. The learned Sessions Judge vide orders dated 14-3-2007 passed in the said criminal proceedings rejected such applications filed by the present petitioners on the ground that the criminal proceedings having been initiated by the learned Public Prosecutor for and on behalf of the State to protect the fame of a Minister and the Money Suit being instituted by one Shri Badal Choudhury as a politician by occupation claiming damages, the complainant in the criminal proceedings and the plaintiff in the civil suits cannot said to be same, as in the criminal case the interest of the Government is involved whereas in the Money Suit private interest of the plaintiff is involved. The other ground on which such applications are rejected is that there is no legal bar in institution and continuance of the criminal proceeding during the pendency of the Civil Suit. Hence the present revision petitions.
3. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners and Shri N. Adhikari, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Mr. Bhowmlk, referring to the allegations made in the complaint petitions filed under Section 199(2), Cr. P. C. and the averments made in the plaint filed in the Money Suits, has submitted that it is apparent that both the proceedings are instituted for the alleged defamatory statement by Shri Ratan Lal Nath, which was printed and published in the two daily newspapers of which the petitioners are either editor or printers and publishers and hence the learned Court below ought to have stayed the further proceeding in the criminal proceedings, as the finding of facts that may arrive at between the parties in the Civil Suits would conclusively decide the question to be gone into in the criminal proceedings, in both the proceedings the question being whether the particular news item is defamatory or not. It has further been submitted that since the judgment passed in the civil suits would be binding on the criminal Court, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, there is every likelihood of rendering conflicting decisions on the same issue by two Courts. Mr. Bhowmik further submits that the grounds on which the learned Court below has rejected the prayer for stay of the further proceeding in the criminal proceedings, is not tenable in law, since the criminal proceeding has been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor at the instance of the Minister-in-Charge of Finance, who has instituted the suit claiming a decree for damages for printing and publishing such alleged defamatory statement and for writing the editorial thereof and hence according to the learned Senior counsel the parties in both the proceedings in reality and substance are same.
5. The learned Senior counsel further submits that though no bar has been created by law for simultaneous proceeding of the civil and the criminal cases, whether the further proceeding in the criminal case is to be stayed, in view of the pendency of the civil proceeding, has to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case and also keeping in view the question of prejudice that may cause to the accused persons, which aspect of the matter, according to the learned Senior counsel, has not been gone into by the learned Trial Court. It has further been submitted by Mr. Bhowmik that in considering as to whether further proceeding in criminal case is to be stayed, the Court is also required to take into consideration the nature of the dispute between the parties as well as the status of the criminal case and the civil suit. According to the learned Counsel since the nature in both the proceedings are same i.e. the allegation of making defamatory statement and printing and publishing of the same and the criminal proceeding having not been proceeded further, after taking cognizance i.e. the complainant is yet to be examined and on the other hand the civil proceeding being at the stage of cross-examination of the witnesses of the parties, the learned Court below ought to have stayed the further proceeding in the criminal cases till disposal of the civil suits, which are likely to be decided at an early date, keeping in view the stage of such civil suits.
6. Mr. Bhowmik in support of his contention has placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Shri Abhash Chandra Dey v. Shri Durga Sah reported in (1989) 1 GLR 78 and a decision of the Apex Court in Syed Askari Hadi All Augustine Imam and Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration) and Anr. reported in : (2009) 5 SCC 528 : AIR 2009 SC 3232.
7. The learned Advocate General supporting the orders dated 14-3-2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the prayer for stay further proceeding in the criminal cases, has submitted that the learned Court below is right in holding that the parties in the criminal and in the civil cases are different, as the criminal proceedings are initiated under Section 199(2), Cr. P. C. on behalf of the State Government for making defamatory statement against a Cabinet Minister and for printing and publishing the same and on the other hand the civil suits are filed by the person against whom such defamatory statement has been made, printed and published. The learned Advocate General further submits that the degree of proof in both the proceedings are completely different, in criminal proceeding being beyond all reasonable doubt and in civil proceeding being preponderance of probabilities, hence, even if any decree for damages is passed in the civil suit, the criminal cases may not be decided against the accused persons and vice versa.
8. Referring to the decision of a constitutional bench of the Apex Court in M. S. Sheriff and Anr. v. State of Madras and Ors. reported in : AIR 1954 SC 397 : 1954 Cri LJ 1019 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam AIR 2009 SC 3232 (supra) the learned Advocate General has submitted that there is no bar for the civil and the criminal cases proceeding simultaneously. It is being a well settled position of law that criminal proceeding will have primacy over the civil proceeding, the learned Court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for stay and hence no interference is called for in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, submits the learned Adocate General. It has further been submitted that keeping in view the facts and' circumstances of this case the Single Bench decision of this Court in Shri Abhash Chandra Dey (supra) is not applicable. According to the learned Advocate General while considering the status i.e. the stage of both the proceedings, the Court is required to consider the stage of the cases, when the petitioners filed the applications under Section 309, Cr. P. C. and not the present stage of those cases. According to the learned Advocate General on the date when the orders dated 14-3-2007 were passed, the issues were not even settled in the civil suits and the statement of the complainant was to be recorded in the criminal cases, which could not be done as application has been filed to call for the manuscript of the relevant newspapers in the custody of the accused petitioners and also, as all the accused persons were not present on all the dates fixed. The learned Advocate General further submits that there is no question of causing any prejudice to the petitioners as they have already disclosed their defence, if any, in the civil suits by filing the written statements. The learned Advocate General, therefore, submits that the present revision petitions deserve to be dismissed.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record of the revision petitions as well as on the records of the criminal cases.
10. Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires every inquiry or trial to be conducted as expeditiously as possible. It also empowers the Court to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, on such terms as it thinks fit and for such time as it considers reasonable. It is the bounden duty of the Court to decide the criminal proceeding as expeditiously as possible, without any unreasonable delay and, therefore, no unnecessary adjournment or postponement is to be ordered. The Court, however, in a given case, for the reasons to be recorded, adjourn the criminal proceeding and even postpone the same for a reasonable period of time as envisages in Section 309, Cr. P. C. One of the circumstances under which a postponement of the criminal proceeding can be ordered is the pendency of the civil proceeding on the same issue, which however, depend on facts and circumstances of each case. There being no legal bar for proceeding with the criminal case during the pendency of a civil dispute between the parties. The postponement of the trial in criminal case, in view of pendency of a civil suit, is not automatic. Whether the further proceeding in a criminal case is to be postponed in exercise of the power conferred by Section 309, Cr. P. C, in view of the pendency of civil dispute between the parties relating to the same issue, depends on the facts of each case. A civil proceeding and also a criminal proceeding may proceed simultaneously. The question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, one or the other proceeding should be stayed depends upon several factors including the nature of the case. Such postponement of the trial in a criminal case, however, cannot be for an indefinite period of time and has to be for a reasonable period of them, otherwise by taking advantage of pendency of a civil suit between the parties a shrewd accused person may stall the further proceeding in the criminal case for an indefinite period of time, as normally longer time is required for disposal of a civil suit in a Civil Court.
11. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in M. S. Sheriff 1954 Cri LJ 1019 (supra) has observed that as between the civil and the criminal proceedings the criminal matters should be given precedence and no hard and fast rule can be laid down relating to the stay of the criminal proceeding, in view of the pendency of the civil proceeding, but the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is not a relevant consideration, as the law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The Apex Court has further observed that the only relevant consideration in that regard is the likelihood of embarrassment. It has further been observed that the Court while deciding an application praying for stay of the criminal proceeding must take into consideration the fact that civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a Criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interest demands that the criminal justice should be swift and sure that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. The Apex Court has further observed that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. It has further been observed that there may be special considerations obtaining in any particular case that might make some other course more expedient and just, e.g., the civil case and the criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to prosecution ordered.
12. The requirement of expeditious disposal of a criminal proceeding is for the benefit of the accused person and the speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Person accused of commission of any criminal office has a right for expeditious trial, so that, if not guilty, he is discharged or acquitted of the charges levelled against him, early. A prosecution launched normally for the offences against the State and if the accused person is guilty he should be punished. The object of inflicting punishment to a guilty person can be achieved only by expeditious conduct of the trial in the criminal proceeding, otherwise the said object would be defeated, as the delay in the trial would defeat justice because the witnesses tend to forget what they saw or heard, resulting in giving contradictory versions in the Court of law.
13. The Apex Court in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam AIR 2009 SC 3232 (supra) has also observed that in a given case, a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding may proceed simultaneously and the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case one or the other proceedings should be stayed would depend upon several factors including the nature and the stage of the case. The Apex Court has further observed that it is well settled that ordinarily a criminal proceeding will have primacy over the civil proceeding and such precedence to a criminal proceeding is given having regard to the fact that disposal of a civil proceeding ordinarily takes a long time and in the interest of justice the criminal proceeding should be disposed of as ex-peditiously as possible. It has further been observed that the civil suit as well as the criminal proceeding are to be decided, keeping in view the evidences brought before it and not on the basis of the evidence brought in other proceeding. A Single Bench of this Court in Shri Abhash Chandra Dey (supra) has also taken the similar view. However, the observation in the said judgment that the findings in the Civil Suit is binding on the criminal Court, is to be understood as limited to facts of that case.
14. In the instant case, complaints under Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were filed by the learned Public Prosecutor in the Court of Sessions on 18-8-2005, on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance vide order dated 18-8-2005 fixing 9-9-2005 for examination of the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who received the records on transfer on 9-9-2005 has directed issuance of summons on the petitioners and other accused person and accordingly the accused persons entered appearance. On 3-12-2005 an application was filed by the complainant for an order to call for the manuscripts of the newspaper concerned, against which the objection has been filed on 6-1-2006. The cases were thereafter fixed on 25-2-2006 for recording the evidence before charge and also by directing to submit the manuscript in the Court. The applications under Section 309, Cr. P. C. have been filed by the petitioners in the month of September, 2006 when the said criminal proceedings were at the stage of recording evidence before charge. The said applications, however, have been rejected by the learned Court below which give rise to the present revision petitions. After filing of the complaint cases by the learned Public Prosecutor, the civil suits being Money Suit Nos. 17/05 and 18/05 were instituted before the Civil Court claiming damages for the alleged defamatory statement printed and published as well as for the editorial written on such alleged defamatory statement. When the applications under Section 309, Cr. P. C. were filed by the present petitioners, the issues were not settled in the civil suits. However, the civil suits are now fixed for examination of witnesses.
15. The trial in the criminal proceedings concerned could not be proceeded though those were fixed for recording the evidence before charge in the month of February, 2006, because of the applications filed by the petitioners for stay of such proceedings and as records of such criminal proceedings were called for by this Court in connection with the present criminal revision petitions. The disposal of criminal proceedings, therefore, has already been delayed considerably though the requirement of law is for expeditious disposal of such criminal proceedings.
16. The contention of the revision petitioners that since the issue involved in both the criminal proceedings as well as the civil proceedings are same i.e. whether the statement is defamatory or not, the further proceeding in the criminal proceedings are to be stayed as there is every likelihood of rendering conflicting decisions on the same issue by two courts, more so when the decision of the civil Court is binding on the criminal court, cannot be accepted as the standard of proof required in the said two proceedings are entirely different. While the civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, in the criminal case the burden lies on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. There is also no statutory provision or any legal principle requiring that the finding recorded in one proceeding is to be treated as final and binding on the other. Both the civil and the criminal proceedings are to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, the judgment passed in one proceeding may be relevant in the other proceeding provided the same are relevant within the meaning of Sections 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not that as soon as a decree for damages is passed by the Civil Court for making, printing and publishing the defamatory statement, the person against whom such decree is passed would be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 500/501 of the I. P. C. There are certain exceptions to the criminal defamation provided in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Though truth necessarily is the defence both in the civil and the criminal defamation, but the first exception to Section 499, I. P. C. provides that any imputation, which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published, it would not come within the definition of defamation under Section 499, I. P. C. Public good, therefore, is an overriding relevant consideration in a criminal defamation which is concerned on the protection of the society unlike a suit for damages for defamation. Similarly, in a criminal defamation public conduct of a public servant is a defence within limits so long as it is in good faith as such is hardly a defence for a civil suit for damages in a private action. In a civil suit the normal public test is whether the reputation of the suitor is lowered in the estimation of the public. As noticed above, a constitution bench of the Apex Court in M. S. Sheriff 1954 Cri LJ 1019 (supra) has observed that the possibility of conflicting decision of the civil and the criminal Court is not a relevant consideration for postponement of trial in a criminal case. However, whether the criminal proceeding is to be stayed for a reasonable period of time, in view of the pendency of the civil proceeding between the parties, depends on the facts of each case.
18. In the cases in hand, the disposal of the criminal proceedings, as observed above, has considerably been delayed and the cases are still at the stage of the evidence before charge since the early part of 2006. Trial in the criminal proceedings have already been postponed for more than 3 years. The degree in proof in civil and the criminal proceeding as discussed above, being different and the decision in the civil Court being not binding on the criminal Court, which may however be relevant subject to the law of Evidence, there cannot be any justification for stay of the criminal proceedings in question. No prejudice would also be caused to the petitioners, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue during pendency of the civil suits, as the petitioners have disclosed their defence, if any, by filing the written statements in the civil suits. Hence in my considered opinion the ultimate decision of the learned Court below in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not require any interference by this Court.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petitions are dismissed being devoid of any merit. No cost.