KAMAL SINGH BADALIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revisional application, the petitioner Kamar Singh Badalia, prays for quashing the proceeding of Case no. C/4803 of 1976 which is now pending against him before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code, on, the ground that the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 Dilip singh, Nahata, instituted the case before the learned Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Calcutta alleging, inter alia, that on September 18, 1976 he received at his office at 12, India Exchange Place, calcutta a letter written to him by Sri bejoy Singh Nahar, President, Bihar state Board of Swetambar Jain Religious trusts, enclosing therewith an alleged true copy of a letter dated March 20, 1976 addressed to the Law Secretary, government of Bihar by the petitioner. It has been alleged by the complainant that from the said communication, be learned that the petitioner wrote a letter to the Law Secretary, Government of bihar, wherein he has intentionally made certain allegations against the. petitioner which are false and highly defamatory. Along with the complaint the copy of the said letter dated March 20, 1976 has been annexed. The learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint, examined the complainant and his witness govinda Chandra Dhar, perused the different paragraphs of the said letter dated March 20, 1976 and being satisfied there from that the letter contained defamatory statements against the complainant, summoned the petitioner under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the process issued the petitioner appeared before the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate who transferred the case to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta for disposal. The petitioner, thereafter, moved this court and obtained the present Rule.

(3.) MR. Sekhar Kumar Boss, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petition of complaint will itself disclose that the offence of alleged defamation was committed within the jurisdiction of Bihar court and as such the Court of the metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Mr. Talukdar, the learned advocate appearing for the complainant on the other hand contended, that the copy of the letter addressed to the Law secretary, Government of Bihar was received by the complainant in Calcutta where he was defamed and in view of the provisions of S. 179 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1873, the Courts at calcutta had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the