Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. In Ganga Prasad Jaiswal v. Chhotelal Jain, , again Section 179 of Cr.P.C. came for interpretation and the Court has held that the Court within whose limits imputation was published, has jurisdiction to try the offence. In the ruling also His Lordship has held as follows (at p. 129) :-

"On a careful perusal of Section 179, it is quite clear to me that the word 'consequence' occurring therein indicates only that consequence which is an integral part of the offence and not a consequence which is not material to the culpability of the accused in relation to that particular offence".

11. In M. H. Alexander v. Smt. Claira Alexander, , again Section 179 came to be interpreted. In that ruling it has been held as follows (at p. 68) :-

"Section 179, Cr.P.C. applies to those offence only where the act and its consequence taken together constitute the offence which is charged. It may be that the act by itself amounts to an offence and when this act is taken together with the consequence it constitutes a different offence. If the accused is to be prosecuted for the act along then the jurisdiction of the court where the consequence occurred will not arise, but if the accused is prosecuted for that offence which was completed by the act followed by its consequence then the courts where the act was committed and where the consequence ensured will both have jurisdiction to try the offence. The test to apply is whether the offender could have been prosecuted and punished for the offence charged even if the alleged consequence had not ensured. If the answer is in the affirmative then S. 179, Cr.P.C. does not apply, but if the answer is in the negative S. 179, Cr.P.C., does apply. It should also be remembered that the consequence should be closely related to the act and not merely a remote and contingent result. A proximity of time is essential between the act and the consequence. A consequence which is not so related to the act may at best provide evidence of the act. It does not become a part of the act."

12. The test laid down by this ruling is, the test to find out as to whether S. 179, Cr.P.C., will come into play in a particular place or not is, whether the offender could have been prosecuted and punished for the offence charged even if the alleged consequence had not ensured. If the answer is in the affirmative then Section 179, Cr.P.C., does not apply and if the answer is in the negative, S. 179, Cr.P.C. does apply.

13. S. 500 of I.P.C. describes punishment for defamation and Section 499 defines defamation. The offence of defamation is committed by any person who by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases mentioned under the exceptions, to defame that person. Therefore, in order to constitute that offence not only the words should be written or spoken to, there must also be publication and they must be intended to harm the reputation of a person. The offence of defamation as defined in S. 499 becomes complete when a publication is made and that publication should intend to harm the reputation of another person. Consequence of harming and intending harming reputation of another person by a publication is a part of the ingredient of the offence as defined is S. 499 of I.P.C. Therefore under Section 179 of Cr.P.C., either the Court where the words are spoken which are intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes or where the consequence of harming the reputation of another person ensue, have got the jurisdiction to try the case. The law that has been laid down by the various High Courts in the rulings to above is clear on this point that the consequence that ensue must form part of the ingredients of the offence and if it is not a part of the ingredients of the offence then the consequence even if it takes place in the jurisdiction of another Court, it will not give jurisdiction to try the offence. In the instant case, from the complaint itself it can be seen that the alleged defamatory matter was published at Bangalore itself. When the matter is published in a paper or a weekly, it is intended to be read. So the consequence of harming the reputation of the complainant has ensured at Bangalore itself. The complainant reading or having come to know of this alleged defamatory matter at Udupi is not an ingredient of the offence, because the offence itself is completed at Bangalore. Therefore, in my opinion, the Court at Bangalore alone has got jurisdiction to try the offence. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 relied on State of Punjab v. Nohar Chand, , wherein it has been held as follows (at p. 1494) :-

"The Court where the substandard fertilizer is marketed will equally have jurisdiction to try the manufacturer of the substandard fertilizer whose manufacturing activity is at a different place."

14-16. This ruling relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent in fact supports the proposition that the Court where consequence which form part of the ingredient of the offence ensured will have jurisdiction to try the offence. In that case the substandard fertilizers were marketed at one place and they were manufactured at another place. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that either the place where the substandard fertilizer was manufactured or where it was marketed, the Court has equal jurisdiction to try the manufacturer. It does not lay down any proposition contrary to what has been discussed by the various High Courts referred to in the rulings quoted above. The learned J.M.F.C., relied upon a ruling of our High Court reported in ILR 1984 (2) Kant 278 : (1984 Cri LJ 1618) (S. Bangarappa v. Ganesh Narayan Hegde). In that case it has been held that on account of the publication in 'Sanjo Vani' the Court at Bangalore has got jurisdiction to try, but it does not mean that the Court at Hubli has no jurisdiction for "Samyukta Karnataka" daily was printed and published at Hubli. His Lordship in that ruling has held that the offences contemplated by Section 179, Cr.P.C., are those which are not complete till a special consequence has ensured. His Lordship has also reiterated the well known principle of law that the consequence must be the essential ingredient of the offence and it must arise within the jurisdiction of the Court trying the offence. Therefore, the law laid down by this Court in this rulings is not contrary to what the other High Courts have held in the rulings cited above. The law is that the consequence that ensured must be an essential ingredient of the offence so as to give jurisdiction to that Court where the consequence has ensured to try the offence under section 179, Cr.P.C. But on the facts of that case, His Lordship held that not only the Court at Bangalore but the Court at Hubli had jurisdiction to try the offence. In that case the allegations were that the petitioner had made a defamatory statement at Bangalore, which was published in 'Sanje Vani' at Bangalore on that day and it was also published in "Sanyukta Karnataka" at Hubli. Therefore, there was publication at Hubli also. If there were not to be a publication in "Sanyukta Karnataka" on 28-4-1983, then Hubli Court could not have had jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by this Court in that case. It is on account of the fact that the 'Sanje Vani' has published defamatory statement in Bangalore and it was published at Hubli, in its edition at Hubli, Hubli has jurisdiction to try the offence. But in the case on hand, it is not the case of complainant that there was any other publication at Udupi. The publication is only once and that is at Bangalore. There was no fresh publication of the alleged defamatory matter at Udupi. Therefore, there was no ensured consequence forming part of the offence of defamation that has ensured within the jurisdiction of Udupi Court. Another ruling relied upon by the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in this case is reported Subramanian Swamy v. P. S. Pai, 1984 Cri LJ 1329 (Bom). There also the position of law laid down is that in order to give jurisdiction to a Court either the offence or the consequence ensured from that offence forming part of the ingredients of the offence must take place within the jurisdiction of that Court. There also the petitioner had made some defamatory statements in a Press Conference at Chandigarh and that was published in a newspaper at Bombay. The facts of those cases are different from the facts of this case. The alleged defamatory statement was made by the accused at Chandigarh. Therefore, the Court at Chandigarh had also jurisdiction to try the offence, but it was published in newspaper circulated and read in Bombay, that is consequence that has ensured within the jurisdiction of Bombay Court by virtue of publication of that statement in a newspaper published at Bombay. Therefore, on the facts of that case it has been held by the Bombay High Court that the Court at Bombay had jurisdiction to try the offence.