Section 237 CrPC: Procedure in Cases Instituted Under Section 199(2)
Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribed the special procedure to be followed by a Court of Session when it took cognizance of an offence under Section 199(2) CrPC. This article explains the provision as it stood before implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
What Section 237 CrPC covered
The provision dealt with a prosecution initiated under Section 199(2), which formed part of the special statutory scheme for prosecution of certain defamation offences concerning specified public functionaries. Section 237 then prescribed the mode of trial, the possibility of an in-camera hearing, and a compensation mechanism where the accusation lacked reasonable cause.
Meaning of Section 199(2) CrPC
Section 199 generally regulated prosecution for defamation. Sub-section (2) created an exception to the ordinary complaint procedure in specified cases involving alleged defamation of certain high constitutional authorities and public servants in respect of conduct connected with the discharge of public functions. In such cases, the Court of Session could take cognizance without committal, subject to the statutory requirements contained in Section 199.
Procedure under Section 237 CrPC
1. Mode of trial
A Court of Session taking cognizance under Section 199(2) was required to follow the procedure applicable to a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report before a Magistrate. Ordinarily, the person against whom the offence was alleged to have been committed was to be examined as a prosecution witness, unless the Sessions Court recorded reasons for directing otherwise.
2. In-camera trial
The trial was required to be held in camera if either party desired it or if the Court considered an in-camera hearing appropriate.
3. Show-cause proceedings for compensation
If all or any accused were discharged or acquitted and the Court considered that there was no reasonable cause for the accusation, it could call upon the person against whom the offence was alleged to have been committed to show cause why compensation should not be paid. The provision excluded the President, Vice-President, Governor of a State and Administrator of a Union territory from this show-cause direction.
4. Order of compensation
After recording and considering the cause shown, the Court could, for recorded reasons and on being satisfied that the accusation lacked reasonable cause, order compensation up to the statutory ceiling of one thousand rupees to the accused or to each or any of the accused.
Recovery, other liability and appeal
Compensation awarded under Section 237(4) was recoverable as if it were a fine imposed by a Magistrate. Payment of such compensation did not exempt the person concerned from any other civil or criminal liability arising from the complaint. Any amount paid under Section 237 was, however, to be taken into account if compensation was later awarded in a civil suit concerning the same matter.
A person ordered to pay compensation could appeal to the High Court against that part of the order. Payment to the accused was deferred until the appeal period expired or, where an appeal was filed, until it was decided.
Practical effect of Section 237
Section 237 combined a special Sessions Court prosecution with procedural safeguards. It borrowed the warrant-case procedure for complaints not based on a police report, permitted privacy through an in-camera hearing, and allowed compensation where the Court found that an accusation ending in discharge or acquittal had been made without reasonable cause.
Related CrPC provisions
For the surrounding trial provisions, see the pages on Sections 225 to 228 CrPC, Sections 229 to 232 CrPC, Sections 233 to 236 CrPC, and Sections 238 to 241 CrPC.
Note: This is a general legal-information article on the pre-BNSS CrPC provision. The applicable procedural law in an individual proceeding may depend on the date and nature of the case and applicable saving provisions.