Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.38 seconds)
Ms. P.S. Meherhomji vs Mr.K.T.Vijay Kumar And Others on 6 July, 2018 cites

Kamal Singh Badalia And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 24 April, 1973

23) In Kamal Singh Badalia vs. State and another the facts are that the accused in the capacity of office bearer of Akhil Bharat Varsiya Jain Sanskrit Rakshak Sabha of Parshanath Mandir Path, Patna City wrote a letter to Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. In the said letter he allegedly made imputations against the complainant. The Law Secretary went through the letter and thereafter forwarded the said letter to Bejoy Singh Nahar, President of Bihar State Board of Shetambar Jain Religious Trusts and the said letter was opened by the office Assistant of Nahar at Calcutta. The said Bejoy Singh Nahar in turn forwarded the said letter to the complainant asking for his comments. Thus, in essence, the letter was written by the accused in Patna and it was published in the Secretariat in Patna when the contents were made known to Law Secretary and Under Secretary of the Government of Bihar at Patna. The High Court of Calcutta in those circumstances observed the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, if any, was completed with its publication at Patna. It further observed it was no doubt true the consequence of alleged commission of such offence was ensued at Calcutta according to the complainant as he was defamed in Calcutta. However, the consequence that ensued at Calcutta was not part of offence of defamation. The High Court further observed it was not the case of the complainant that while sending the letter to Law Secretary at Patna the accused also sent the copies of letter to any one in Calcutta so as to entitle the metropolitan Magistrate to entertain the complaint on the ground that the accused published the defamatory statement in Calcutta. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sri. C.S. Sathya vs State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 1992

24) In Sri C.S.Sathya vs. State of Karnataka the facts are that the accused in his weekly Jwalamukhi edited, printed and published an article at Bangalore defaming the complainant. It appears the complainant saw the weekly in question at Udipi and filed criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at Hubli (sic. Udipi). The jurisdiction of the trial Court was questioned by the accused.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Ganga Prasad Jaiswal vs Chhotelal Jain on 31 August, 1962

Basing on the above and other judgments, the High Court has held that under Section 179 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 consequences of harming the reputation of another person ensue, have got the jurisdiction to try the case. It further observed that 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. Applying the aforesaid observation to the facts, it held that in that case the alleged defamatory matter was published at Bangalore itself to be intended to be read so the consequences of harming the reputation of the complainant has ensued at Bangalore itself. The complainant reading or having come to know of this alleged defamatory matter at Udipi is not an ingredient of the offence, because the offence itself is completed at Bangalore and hence the Court at Bangalore alone has got jurisdiction to try the offence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next