Territorial jurisdiction in defamation cases is determined by the court where the offending publication was delivered and read by the complainant.

Heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The brief facts leading to the present revision are that the respondent complainant Nalin Chandra Buragohain filed Complaint Case No.2394c of 1996 against the petitioner accused persons alleging inter alia that the two accused persons being the Managing Director and Editor of a weekly 'Raijar Prahari' published a news item on 18.9.96 wherein certain false and frivolous accusations were made against the complainant, who is a responsible Govt servant serving as Executive Engineer and the said news item according to the complainant has defamed him as there is allegation of misappropriation of Govt fund by him. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati took cognizance of the offence and issued process under section 500IPC. The two petitioners accused appeared before the Court and filed an application that the Court at Guwahati had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the provisions contained in section 179 CrPC. Learned trial Magistrate after hearing both sides rejected the contention of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 23.11.97. Hence the present revision.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the said news weekly is published and circulated within the District of Dhemaji only and as such the Court at Dhemaji has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, if any, in the matter. There is no dispute at the Bar that the weekly 'Raijar Prahari' is published from Dhemaji. Learned Magistrate has however held that the weekly although published from Dhemaji, is circulated at Guwahati within the jurisdiction of Guwahati Court. As a matter of fact the petitioner also came to know about the said news item at Cimvahati only where he was serving at the relevant time. Section 179 CrPC reads as follows :

"179. Offence triable, when- .;ct is done or consequence ensues; - 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."

In the impugned judgment learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also held that although the alleged offending article was published at Dhemaji the consequence had ensued at Guwahati and as such Guwahati Court has jurisdiction. In support of the contention the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CS Sathya vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1994 Crl LJ 1954. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that in case of defamation under section 499IPC the jurisdiction of the Court in view of section 179 CrPC will be at the place where the news item was printed and published. The Court took the view that the Act and consequences thereof harming reputation of the complainant completing at Bangalore (place where the news paper was published) and as such the Court at Bangalore has jurisdiction to try the offence of defamation.

4. In the present case, the petitioners have challenged the territorial jurisdic­tion of the Guwahati Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged. In the case of Smti Raj Kutnari Vijh vs. Dev Raj Vijh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1101, the Apex Court observed that the territorial jurisdiction is directed just as a matter of convenience, keeping in mind the jurisdiction point of view with respect to the work of a particular Court, the convenience of the accused and the convenience of the witnesses. The Apex Court also goes to consider the provisions of section 179 CrPC in the case of State of Punjab vs. Noharchand reported in AIR 1984 SC 1492. The matter related to manufacture of sub-standard fertilizer and the marketing of the same at different places. The Court held that the place where the sub-standard fertilizer was manufactured and the place where the same is marketed, Court has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the case.

5. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document