S BANGARAPPA Vs. GANESH NARAYAN HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the petitioner, who was the accused No. 1 in C. C. No. 2888/1983 pending on the file of the J.M,F.C, II Court Hubli City.

(2.) Complainant filed a complaint for the offence under S. 500 I. P. C. against the accused No. 1 who is said to have made an alleged defamatory statement and also against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the Printer and Publisher and Editor of Samyukta Karnataka Daily, published in Hubli The accused No. 1 is said to have called a Press Conference on 28th April, 1983 at Bangalore and is said to have made the alleged defamatory statement at that Press Conference. The said statement was published in various newspapers including Samyukta Karnataka Daily published in Hubli. That Samyukta Karnataka Paper was published at Hubli on 29-4-1983. The complainant feeling that the publication of the said statement said to have been made by the accused No. 1 amounted to an offence of defamation as defined by S 499 I.P.C. has filed a complaint in the Court of the J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, issued process for the offence under S. 500 I.P.C. against the accused persons. While the matter was thus pending the accused No. 1 filed an application under S, 179 Cr.P.C, contending that the so called statement made by the accused No. 1 at the Press Conference at Bangalore was published in 'Sanje Vaninewspaper dt. 28-4-1983, published in Bangalore and that the offence of defamation could at the most be said to be completed or committed at Bangalore itself and that therefore, the subsequent publication of that statement in Samyukta Karnataka paper on the next day was nothing but a repetition of what had been published in 'Sanje Vani" In short, the accused No. 1 contended that the publication of that statement in Samyukta Karnataka, was repetition of what had been published in Sanje Vani the previous day. Repetition of such news, according to the accused No. 1 was not a consequence' within the meaning of S. 179 Cr.P.C. Thus, be urged that in the circumstances, the Court at Hubli had no jurisdiction.