The act and its consequence must together constitute an offence under S. 179 Cr. P. C.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the petitioner, who was the accused No. 1 in C. C. No. 2888/1983 pending on the file of the J. M,f. C, II Court Hubli city.

( 2 ) COMPLAINANT filed a complaint for the offence under S. 500 I. P. C. against the accused No. 1 who is said to have made an alleged defamatory statement and also against Accused nos. 2 and 3 who are the Printer and publisher and Editor of Samyukta karnataka Daily, published in Hubli the accused No. 1 is said to have called a Press Conference on 28th april, 1983 at Bangalore and is said to have made the alleged defamatory statement at that Press Conference. The said statement was published in various newspapers including samyukta Karnataka Daily published in Hubli. That Samyukta Karnataka Paper was published at hubli on 29-4-1983. The complainant feeling that the publication of the said statement said to have been made by the accused No. 1 amounted to an offence of defamation as defined by S 499 I. P. C. has filed a complaint in the Court of the j. M. F. C. II Court, Hubli.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate, issued process for the offence under s. 500 I. P. C. against the accused persons. While the matter was thus pending the accused No. 1 filed an application under S, 179 cr. P. C, contending that the so called statement made by the accused No. 1 at the Press Conference at Bangalore was published in 'sanje Vaninewspaper dt. 28-4-1983, published in Bangalore and that the offence of defamation could at the most be said to be completed or committed at Bangalore itself and that therefore, the subsequent publication of that statement in Samyukta Karnataka paper on the next day was nothing but a repetition of what had been published in 'sanje Vani" in short, the accused No. 1 contended that the publication of that statement in Samyukta Karnataka, was repetition of what had been published in Sanje Vani the previous day. Repetition of such news, according to the accused No. 1 was not a consequence' within the meaning of S. 179 Cr. P. C. Thus, be urged that in the circumstances, the Court at Hubli had no jurisdiction.

( 4 ) THE Counsel for the accused no. 1 urged that the publication of the statement in Samyukta Karnataka daily Paper did not amount to one and the same transaction. Accused no. 1's next contention appears to be, that once he made that statement he ceased to have control over the future events like publication in Samyukta karnataka. According to him, unless it is shown that the accused No. 1 had a hand in the publication of the news in Samyukta Karnataka paper, he cannot be said to have committed the offence of defamation. In short, the accused No. 1 contended that both the act and the consequence ensued at bangalore itself.

( 5 ) IT appears that long drawn arguments were addressed before the Magistrate by both the sides. The learned Magistrate has dealt with the matter in great detail and ultimately held that the J. M. F. C. Court at Hubli had also got jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed the application of the accused No. 1 under s. 179 Cr. P. C.

( 6 ) THE accused No. 1 being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Magistrate, has come up with the present revision.

( 7 ) THE material facts are accused No. 1 called a Press Conference on 28-4-1983 and made an alleged defamatory statement in that press Conference at Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that the so called statement made in the Press conference was published in Sanje vani dt. 28-4-1983 at Bangalore. S. 179 cr. P. C. reads as :-"when an Act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. "this Section contemplates two things : The first is that the offender has done an act and the second is that a consequence has followed from such Act and the offender is being tried for the offence as a result of both t