Narain Singh vs State Of Delhi And Anr.
1967 Latest Caselaw 166 Del

JUDGMENT

P.D. Sharma, J.

(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 buth 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 tohers', Ganga Prasad Jaiswal v. Chhtoe 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 nto competent to entertain the complaint under section 500, Indian Penal Code. Somasundaram J. in U. M. Arayamutha lyengar's case, however, laid down:- "WHENa letter enclosed in an envelope is posted at any particular place, it cannto amount to publication at the place where the letter is posted. The gist of the offence of defamation being publication of the defamatory matter, if the latter does nto reach the toher side, it cannto be said that defamation has been completed merelv because the letter was posted at a particular place. There must, therefore, be evidence of the publication to constitute defamation and till the letter is published it cannto be said that defamation has been committed."

This ruling was considered and explained at length by Munikanniah J. in Pisupati Purnaiah Sidhanlhi v. Pisupati Satyanarayana Sidhanthi", where the offence of defamation was committed by the accused by - posting a defamatory letter from place A to place B and the actual publication of the letter took place at B where the letter was opened and read by the son of the addressee, The learned Judge observed- "When an offence which can be committed in parts has been fulfillled partly and something or toher prevents the completion of the toher part of the offence, in such a case, no question of jurisdiction to enquire or try the case would arise. But where a part of it has taken place in one locality and toher part in antoher locality the mere possibility of the letter being lost in transit would nto make it appear that the offence was nto committed in parts in different localities, when actually the offence happens to be completed. The offence could be tried either at A where the posting took place or at B where the actual publication took place." The cases - M. R. Krishnamurihi lyar v. C. V. Parasurama lyar, Mrs. K. Burka v. T C. W. Skipp. In re. Appayoo Pillar, and Emperor v. Narain Das, also support the view enunciated in Pisupati Satyanarayana Sidhanthi's case, which I respectfully follow. The trial Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge were correct in holding as they did that the complaint under section 500, Indian Penal Code, could be entertained by Courts at Delhi.

(3) The revision petition fails and is dismissed.