SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1923 Supreme(Mad) 39

SPENCER
M. R. Krishnamurthy Aiyar – Appellant
Versus
C. V. Parasurama Aiyar – Respondent


ORDER

Spencer, J.

1. If the complainant can prove that the letter was posted in Madras with a view to be read in Tinnevelly the offence of defamation is triable either in. Madras or in Tinnevelly under Sections 179 and 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeing that the accused has done all in his power towards publication and has lost control of the letter when he has committed it to the post (see Mayne on Criminal Law, 4th Edition, p. 872).

2. The English cases of Rex v. Burdett (1820) 4 B & Ald. 95 (126, 127): 106 E.R. 873 (885) Rex v. Williams (1810 2 Camp. 506) and The Queen v. Ameer Khan and Ors. (1871) 17 W.R. Cr. 15 support this view.

3. The third Presidency Magistrate is directed to take the complaint on his file and dispose of it according to law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top