Gauhati High Court
Dilip Kr. Hazarika And Anr. vs Nalin Ch. Buragohain on 22 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002CRILJ1608
JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Kataki; learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The brief facts leading to the present revisions are that the respondent complainant Nalin Ch. Buragohain filed Complaint Case No. 2394C/96 against the petitioner accused persons alleging inter alia that the two accused person being the Managing Director and Editor of a weekly "Raijar Prahari" published a news item on 18.9.1996 wherein certain false and frivolous acquisitions were made against the complainant who is a responsible Government servant serving as Executive Engineer and the said news item according to the complainant has defamed him as there is allegation of misappropriation of Government fund by him. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati took cognizance of the offence and issued process under Section 500, IPC. The two petitioners accused appeared before the court and filed an application that the court at Guwahati had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the provisions contained in Section 179, CrPC. Learned Trial Magistrate after hearing both sides rejected the contention of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 23.11.1997. Hence the present revision.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the said news weekly is published and circulated within the District of Dhemaji only and as such the Court at Dhemaji has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, if any, in the matter. There is no dispute at the Bar that the weekly 'Raijar Prahari' is published from Dhemaji. Learned Magistrate has however held that the weekly although published from Dhemaji is circulated at Guwahati within the jurisdiction of Guwahati Court. As a matter of fact the petitioner also came to know about the said news item at Guwahati only where he was serving at the relevant time. Section 179, CrPC read as follows :
"179. Offence triable, where act is done or consequence ensures. - When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued."
In the impugned judgment learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has aso held that although the alleged offending article was published at Dhemaji, the consequence had ensured at Guwahati and as such Guwahati court has jurisdiction. In support of the contention the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of C.S. Sathya v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1994 Cri LJ 1954. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that in case of defamation under Section 499, IPC the jurisdiction of the court in view of Section 179, CrPC will be at the place where the news item was printed and published the Court took the view that the Act and consequences thereof harming reputation of the complainant completing at "Bangalore" (place where the newspaper was published) and as such the court at Bangalore has jurisdiction to try the offence of defamation.
4. In the present case the petitioners have challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Guwahati Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged. In the case of Smt. Raj Kumari Vijh v. Dev Raj Vijh, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1101 the Apex Court observed that the territorial jurisdiction is directed just as a matter of convenience, keeping in mind the jurisdiction point of view with respect to the work of a particular court, the convenience of the accused and the convenience of the witnesses. The Apex Court also goes to consider the provisions of Section 179, CrPC in the case of State of Punjab v. Noharchand, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1492. The matter related to manufacture of sub-standard fertilizer and the marketing of the same at different places. The Court held that the place where the sub-standard fertilizer was manufactured and the place where this is marketed, court has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the case.
5. In the impugned judgment, the learned trial Magistrate has relied on a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of M.P. Narayana Filial v. M.P. Chacko, reported in 1986 Cri LJ 2002. The mater relates to defamation proceeding out of news item published. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court held :
"One of the contentions of the petitioners is that the Magistrate acted illegally in taking.cognizance of the offence when he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That contention does not appear to be correct. It is true that the Kalakaumudi Weekly is printed and published from Trivandrum. But in order to maintain a prosecution for defamation in a particular court there need only be publication of the libel within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed. Jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the allegations in the complaint for the purpose of a proceeding under S. 499. The very allegation of the 1st respondent in the complaint is that it was published at Vaikom also and it was from there that he got and read a copy of it. Being a Weekly publication intended to be read by people, it is enough for the complainant to show that the publication was delivered within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the court in order to invest that court with jurisdiction. It need not be shown that the defamatory matter was seen or read by any particular person within the jurisdiction of that court. Since the Weekly is being printed and published for the purpose of reading by the people when it is shown that it was published it could be presumed that it was read."
6. Considering the evidence of the present case I am in agreement with the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that where the offending publication was delivered and was read by the complainant, the said court would have territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
7. In the result, there is no merit in this revision petition and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.