ARAVAMUTHA IYENGAR Vs. RAJARAMA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Palavered. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence, of defamation. In the complaint filed it is alleged that the petitioner has written letters to persons in, Madurai, in which he had made allegations, which are defamatory. But in Para.6 of the complaint it is also stated that the accused was spreading gossips in the village in the business circles purely to belittle complainant's business integrity and harm his business if possible and that he had on more than one occasion defamed the complainant in the presence of witnesses.The letters alleged to have been sent to merchants at Madurai were posted at Chingleput and they were received at the other end by the persons to whom they were addressed. An objection was raised by the accused in the lower Court that inasmuch as the letters referred to were sent to Madurai and were received at Madurai and as the publication, therefore, to the two persons was at Madurai, the Court at Pallavaram to which the case was transferred by the learned District Magistrate has no jurisdiction.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the essence of the offence of defamation consists in publication of the libelous matter and that as there was no publication within the limits of the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate of Chingleput, the District Magistrate of Chingleput has no jurisdiction to take the complaint on file. But the learned counsel, who appears for the complainant respondent, contends that the District Magistrate of the place at which the letters were posted has jurisdiction.He relies for his contention on the decision of Spencer J. in Krishnamurthi Iyer v. Parasurama Aiyar, 44 Mad LJ 648: (AIR 1923 Mad 666)