PISUPATI PURNAIAH SIDHANTHI Vs. PISUPATI SATYANARAYANA SIDHANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises in this Revision petition is whether the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Ongole has jurisdiction to try this case.

(2.) The complainant has alleged against his father that he was defamed as the latter wrote a letter to one Karnam Jayarao Pantulu Garu residing at Doulatabad in Kodangal Taluk, Mahaboobnagar District. Both the complainant and the accused are the residents of Karavadi in Ongole taluk of Guntur District. The letter containing imputations was written on 26-3-58 and sent to the addressee by post and as the addressee was suffering from paralysis, the letter was opened by one of his sons, Shambu Krishnarao and the contents were read out at the direction of the said Karnam Jayarao Pantulu Garu. It is alleged that this highly defamatory letter which is to harm, undermine and ruin the long established reputation of the complainant as an almanac publisher and which already gained publicity was shown to the complainant when he went on tour to Doulatabad. The accused took the plea that the court of the Munsif-Magistrate at Ongole has no jurisdiction to try the offence as the gist of the offence of defamation consisted in publication which took place, according to the accused, only when the delivered letter was opened at Doulatabad. The Munsif-Magistrate overruled the objection. Hence the revision petition.

(3.) The Madras High Court dealt with this question in more than one decision. The earliest of the decisions is that of Spencer J., reported in Krishnamurthi Iyer v. Parasurama Iyer, AIR 1923 Mad 666. That was a case of posting of a letter containing defamatory matter from Madras with a view to be read in Tinnevelly. The learned Judge held that that offence of defamation is triable either in Madras or in Tinnevelly under Sections 179 and 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further Spencer J. has relied upon three English cases R. v. Burdett, (1820) 4 B. and Ald. 95; R. v. Williams, (1810) 2 Camp. 505 and Queen v. Ameer Khan, 17 Suth WR Cr. 15: 9 Beng LR 36, for the proposition that when an accused posted a defamatory letter he has done all in his power towards publication and lost control of the letter when he committed it to post. In Burke v. Skipp, AIR 1924 Mad 340, a Division Bench consisting of Odgers and Hughes JJ. again referred to (1820) 4 B and Ald. 95 as an authority for the position that letter is deemed to be published both where it is posted and where it is received and opened and also approved of the dictum of Spencer J. in AIR 1923 Mad 666. However, the learned Judges held that Ex. A-1, the letter of defamation which the accused was alleged to have written from Bangalore has not emanated from that accused and therefore the District Magistrate of Bangalore had no jurisdiction to try the case. In In re Antony D Silva, 61 Mad LW 503 : (AIR 1949 Mad 3), Happell and Govindarajachari JJ., were considering the jurisdiction of Courts in entertaining complaints under Section 420, Indian Penal Code and held that where both the deception and deprivation of property took place within the jurisdiction of the same Court, Section 177 Criminal Procedure Code alone will apply; but have further observed at p. 504 (of Mad LW); (at p. 4 of AIR) as follows: "If on the other hand deception is practiced within the territorial jurisdiction of one Court and the consequence, namely, payment of money occurs within the jurisdiction of another court, either Court can, by virtue of Section 179 of the Cr. P.C. try the case subject, of course, to the applicability o the Criminal Procedure Code to both the Courts." They, thus, affirmed the principle that where the consequence of the commission of an offence occurs within the jurisdiction of another Court, such offence may be enquired into or tried by any of the Courts.