S. VENKATARAMAN, J.

( 1 ) THE first petitioner who is the printer, editor and publisher of a news magazine of Lankesh Patrike, in whose magazine an article containing alleged defamatory imputations against the respondent complainant written by the second petitioner is stated to have been published and the 2nd petitioner are being prosecuted by the respondent for an offence under Section 500 I. P. C. in the court of the J. M. F. C. , Davanagere. The respondent lives in Davanagere and the Bhadra Sugar Factory, of which he is the chairrnan, is also located in Davanagere taluk. The alleged defamatory article refers mainly to the respondent's conduct as chairman of the said sugar factory.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, by an application under Section 177 read with Section 179 Cr. P. C. , contended that as the news magazine was admittedly printed and published at Bangalore the offence has been completed at Bangalore and the Court at Davanagere had no jurisdiction to try the case merely because the complainant resides there or that the article is read there. The respondent who had alleged in the complaint that the news magazine is widely read throughout the State, in his objections to the application filed by the petitioners clarified that the paper is circulated throughout the State and that even the edition containing the defamatory article was circulated at Devanagere.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate after hearing both sides held that the court had jurisdiction as the defamatory article is stated to have been published in Davanagere by the circulation of the particular issue and also as the harm to the reputation of the complainant had occurred within the jurisdiction of that court.

( 4 ) THE petitioner who are aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate have questioned its correctness in this petition.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relying entirely on the decision in C. S. Sathya v. State of Karnataka, (1993) 1 Kant LJ 56: (1994 Cri LJ 1954) (Kant) contended that as the alleged offence was completed by the printing and publishing of the news magazine at Bangalore, the Court at Davanagere will not have jurisdiction to try the offence merely because the paper might have been read or circulated within the limits of that jurisdiction of that Court.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the consequence of defamatory article namely harming reputation of the respondent has taken place in Devanagere, where the respondent lives and the sugar factory is located and that as such by virtue of Section 179 Cr. P. C. Davanagere Court has jurisdiction. He further contended that in the case of newspaper, though it may be printed and published at one place, wherever the paper containing the defamatory article is sold or circulated the defamatory article gets published at each such place and the court having jurisdiction over that place can try the offence under Section 500 IPC. He submitted that the decision in C. S. Sathya's case (1994 Cri LJ 1954) is restricted to the facts of that case and that it cannot be taken to lay down a proposition of law that even if the newspaper containing defamatory article is sold and circulated at a particulai place other than the place where it is printed and published, the court having territorial jurisdiction over such other place will not have jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 500 IPC. He cited some authorities in support of this contention.

( 7 ) TO attract Section 179 Cr. P. C. , the ensuing consequence of the act done must be an integral part of the offence. To constitute the offence of defamation the ingredients required to be proved are; (1) making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; (2) such imputation must have been made : (I) by words either spoken or intended to be read or; (ii) by signs or; (iii) Visible representation; (3) such imputation must have been made with the intention of harrning of with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document