( 1 ) CRIMINAL Revision Petition No. 143/89 is filed by the petitioner who is an accused in C. C. No. 1597 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Munsif and J. M. F. C. , Udupi, D. K. Criminal Revision Petition No. 144/89 is filed by the petitioner who is an accused in C. C. No. 1442/82, on the file of the same JMFC. Both the cases are registered on the complaint of Respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of I. P. C. , The petitioner filed applications under Section 177 read with Section 201 of Cr. P. C. , for their discharge. The learned Judge passed a common order in both the applications dismissing the said applications. As both these Criminal revision petitions directed against the common order passed in both the Criminal Cases by the learned J. M. F. C. , I have heard both these cases together and I am passing a common order in them.

( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and perused the records of the case.

( 5 ) IT is the case of Respondent No. 2 that accused No. 2 in his weekly "jwalamukhi" dated 12-2-1982 edited printed and published an article defaming Respondent No. 2 and the complainant saw the Weekly in question at Hubli and therefore, the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 500, I. P. C. , and the J. M. F. C. Court at Hubli (sic) (Udipi?) has got jurisdiction to try the same.

( 6 ) THE petitioners filed applications for their discharge on the ground that the J. M. F. C. , Court at Hubli (sic) (Udipi) has no jurisdiction to try the case as according to the averments in the complaints the acts of editing, printing and publishing the said weekly had been committed at Bangalore.

( 7 ) SECTION 179 of Cr. P. C. lays down that 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.

( 8 ) IN Kamal Singh Badalia v. State, 1980 Cri LJ NOC 59, the Calcutta High Court has held that Section 179 can apply only to a case where a person is charged with an offence which constitutes not only the act committed by him but also the consequence which has ensued from the act. If the consequence is not part of the offence then Section 179 has no application. In that case it was held where the defamatory letter was written by the accused at Patna to the Secretary of the Government at Bihar and the contents of the letter were made known to the officials of Government of Bihar before forwarding a copy thereof to another person in Calcutta. Therefore, it was held in that case that the ingredient of publication was completed at Patna when the contents of the letter were made known to the officials in the Secretariat.

( 9 ) IN Banka Behari Singh v. O. M. Thomas, AIR 1960 Ori 126 : (1960 Cri LJ 1116), S. 179 came for interpretation in respect of books and his Lordship Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court held - "the consequence referred to in S. 179, Cr. P. C. , must be a part of the offence with which the accused person is charged. If as soon as an act is committed, offence is complete at the place where the act is committed and then merely because the same offence is repeated at another place, latter offence cannot be said to be a 'consequence' arising out of the very same act within the meaning of the aforesaid section.

( 10 ) IN Ganga Prasad Jaiswal v. Chhotelal Jain, AIR 1963 MP 128, again Section 179 of Cr. P. C. came for interpretation and the Court has held that the Court within whose limits imputation was published, has jurisdiction to try the offence. In the ruling also His Lo