NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ajit Singh filed a complaint under section 500, Indian Penal Code, against Narain Singh in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the latter posted a defamatory letter from Delhi to Major G. S. Dhillon at Bareilly who in turn sent it to the complainant at Delhi. The accused raised a preliminary objection before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the Courts at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the defamatory statement could be said to have published, if at all, at Bareilly. The trial Magistrate held that the offence of defamation by means of a defamatory letter could be tired both at the place of posting as well as the place where the publication took place. The accused felt aggrieved from this order and preferred a revision in the Court of Session which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, on 30th September, 1965. The present revision petition is directed against this order.

(2.) The complainant alleged that the accused-petitioner posted the defamatory letter at Delhi to Major G. S. Dhillon at Bareilly and the last named sent back the letter to the complainant for his perusal. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner maintained that since the alleged defamatory statement could be said to have been published only at Bareilly, therefore the Courts at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In support of his argument he relied on Raja Shah v. The Empres, Maheh Das v. The Empress", Banka Behari Singh v. Thomas and others', Ganga Prasad Jaiswal v. Chhote Lal Jain, Kandanmal v.Emperor, and U.M. Arayamutha lyengar v. Rajarathna Mudaliar. In the first five cases the question which came up for determination was whether the Courts where the defamatory statement was published could entertain a complaint under section 500, Indian penal Code. The reply in all these cases was in the affirmative. In none of them it was even indirectly pointed out that the Courts having jurisdiction at the place where the letter containing defamatory statement was posted were not competent to entertain the complaint under section 500, Indian Penal Code. Somasundaram J. in U. M. Arayamutha lyengar's case, however, laid down:-

(3.) The revision petition fails and is dismissed.