Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Relying on Section 179 Cr.P.C., 1973, jurisprudence R. Bhagwan Singh Vs Indian Institute of Technology1; Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. and another vs Azim.H.Premji2; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Suresh Kaushal3; Bangarappa Vs Ganesh 1 (2009) SCC OnLine Mad 661 2 (2009) SCC OnLine Mad 1629 3 2001 AIR SCW 4587 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 07:56:09 pm ) Narayan Hegde4; Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Prabhakar5), the Magistrate upheld territorial jurisdiction on the basis that consequences ensued within Tiruchirappalli, where the complainant resides and where the interview/publication was accessible.

9. On personal hearing of the words, the learned Magistrate held that publication to third parties suffices for defamation and personal hearing by the complainant is not required (relying on Mohammed Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K.6). On Exception 3, the learned Magistrate held that exceptions are matters of defence to be proved at trial (placing reliance on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India7 and, therefore, not a bar to cognisance. Concluding that “grounds exist for proceeding,” the learned Magistrate took cognisance and ordered continuation of the complaint.

10.2. Misapplication of “cognisance” law: By relying on sworn statements under the very chapter dealing with post-application steps, the learned Magistrate evinced application of mind to proceed in a particular way, as demonstrated in R.R. Chari v. State of U.P.9, Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abni Kumar Banerjee10, further affirmed in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh11, and only thereafter extended a hearing, contrary to Section 223 BNSS’s proviso.

12.8. The learned senior counsel categorically contended that, the defense leans on Exception 3 to Section 352 BNSS (akin to fair comment/good-faith opinion) and pointed out that, as per Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India14, the burden to prove an exception is on the accused and arises at trial, not at cognisance. Pointing out that, the accused’s own notice-reply does not deny authorship; he claims public interest/fair comment. That squarely triggers a triable issue; it cannot defeat cognisance.