JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, dated May 14, 1982, issuing process against the petitioner.

2. The jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of an offence is challenged in this petition. That arises on the following facts of the case.

3. The petitioner, Dr. Subramaniam Swamy who is a member of the Lok Sabha and Deputy Leader of the Janata Party in Parliament, is the accused in a complaint filed by respondent No. 1, Prabhakar S. Pai, who happened to be the Mayor of Bombay at the time of the filing of the complaint. It is contended by the complainant in his complaint that the General Elections were scheduled to take place in the Country in four States, namely, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, West Bengal and Kerala. The accused in his capacity as the General Secretary of the Janata Party had been actively campaigning for the success of his Party candidates. On May 10, 1982 the accused was campaigning for the said Elections in Chandigarh in the State of Haryana. It is further alleged that on the same day, that is on May 10, 1982, the accused held a press conference at Chandigarh and during the said press conference he made a malicious and vituperative attack on the complainant. The defamatory statement made by the accused has been annexed with the complaint at Exhibit A. The said defamatory statement was made in the presence of several new reporters and others. On the following day, that is, on May 11, 1982, the Delhi edition of the Indian Express reported that per se defamatory statement on page 5 under the news item titled "Smugglers gave BJP 5 crores for poll "Swamy". It is further stated in the complaint that the Delhi edition of the Indian Express reaches Bombay by 12 noon on the same day and circulated for sale. Several citizens of the City of Bombay purchase and read the Delhi edition of the Indian Express. It is the contention of the complainant that every statement made by the petitioner relating to his reputation made in the said press conference is per se defamatory and it is intended to malign and denigrate the complainant and to lower him in the esteem of the public. It is also intended to lower his moral character and political status. This complaint is filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Bombay. It appears that after verification of the complaint the learned Magistate ordered to issue summons to the accused. It is that order which is challenged in this petition.

4. In this petition the sole contention raised by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Shri P.R. Vakil, is that the Bombay Court has no jurisdiction to take congnizance of the offence, since the alleged statement is made at Chandigarh and the publication of he said statement is from Delhi. Either the Chandigarh or the Delhi Court will have jurisdiction to entertain or take cognizance of the offence.

5. It is urged by Shri Vakil that the reliance upon the provision of section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the complainant is not well-founded because the offence, if any, is completed at the press conference itself and no consequence has ensued at Bombay and, therefore, the Bombay Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain or take cognizance of the offence. In support of this submission Shri. Vakil relied upon the Full Bench Court in (In re Jivandas Savchand)1, 32 Bom.L.R. 1195. It is observed in the said decision that "taking section 179 alone, and reading it without the help of any authority, I should have thought it was plain that the consequence referred to is a consequence which forms part of the offence, and a consequence which does not form part of the offence does not attract jurisdiction under section 179." Shri S.B. Jaisinghani, learned Counsel app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document