IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.07.2009
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Crl.OP.Nos.4526 & 4528/2001
1.R.Bhagwan Singh, Reporter,
Deccan Chronicle,
Chennai-41 1st Petitioner in both Cr.OPs
2.O.Thomas Petitioner in Cr.OP.4526/01
Vs
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
by its Registrar, Professor MR Pranesh
Chennai-36 Respondent in both Cr.OPs
Prayer:- These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the complaint in CC.No.7714 & 7716/2000 which copy is yet to be served upon the Petitioner, stay all further proceedings in CC.No.7714 7716/2000 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, pending disposal of the above petition, dispense with appearance of the Petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in relation to CC.No.7714 7716/2000 pending disposa of the above petition and to call for the records in CC.No.7714 7716/2000 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same, in so far as it relates to the Petitioners.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sathish Parasaran
For Respondent : Mr.Vijaya Narayanan, SC for
Mr.R.Parthiban
ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in CC.Nos.7714 and 7716/2000 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in so far as the Petitioners, viz. R.Bhagwan Singh and O.Thomas, who are the Reporter and the Publisher of the English Daily Newspaper “Deccan Chronicle” are concerned.
2. The brief facts are stated as follows:-
The Respondent/complainant, viz. Indian Institute of Technology has been maintaining a very high standard in technical education in India and has acquired a name for its academic excellence not only in India, but throughout the world. A publication was made in the English Daily Newspaper “Deccan Chronicle” dated 8.8.2000 in Hyderabad and Bangalore Editions, which reads as under:-
“AP TRIBAL GIRL FIGHTS HER WAY INTO IIT, BRILLIANT STUDENT DECLARED FAILED, TOPS AFTER RE-EXAMINATION.
An Andhra tribal girl has managed to wrest admission into the prestigious IIT here after waging a door-die battle against the administration, which first declared her as failed but back tracked subsequently in the face of evidence in her favour and the threat of agitation by the Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, a dalit party.
Ms.Sujee Teppal, who belongs to the Kammara Tribe in Bhimvaram, was so badly shaken up on learning that she failed in physics despite topping mathematics and chemistry papers, that she even attempted suicide and was saved at the nick of time by Apollo Hospital here, according to reliable sources.
Extensive investigations in the Institute reveal “Sujee was failed deliberately in the Physics paper despite doing well-one suggestion widely heard in the institute corridors was that the concern teacher “punished” her because she was “too smart” for his liking””.
The Respondent has filed the complaint against R.Bhagwan Singh, the Reporter, M.J.Akbar, the Editor-in-Chief and O.Thomas, the Publisher of Deccan Chronicle, arraying them as A1 to A3 for preparing and publishing the said news item in the Deccan Chronicle dated 8.8.2000 with the common intention to malign and defame the complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 500, 501, 502 read with 34 and 120 of IPC.
3. The complainant has stated in the complaint that the aforesaid report is totally and grossly misleading and highly defamatory. It is further stated that the tribal girl by name Sujee joined the preparatory course in the year 1999 along with 22 others and in February 2000, Sujee’s father was informed by the Coordinator of the Preparatory Course that her performance was not upto the mark in Physics in First Term of the Course and she must put in a great effort in that subject. The father of Sujee sent a reply to the Director, thanking the Director for the suggestions made and assuring that his daughter would do well in future. It is further stated that Sujee along with 16 other students was also informed to improve their performance in physics. Out of 23 students attended the Preparatory 1999 Course, about 1/3rd failed and Sujee was also one among them, who failed to secure the pass marks in the Examination. However, the offending news item proceeded maliciously as if she stood first among the 6 candidates in the test, which is false and without any basis. Further a perusal of the offending news item would make it clear that the heading note “teacher punished Sujee because she was too smart for his liking” is totally false.
4. The Petitioners have submitted that they do not propose to traverse on the merits of the case, even while maintaining that the very complaint is frivolous and wholly devoid of merits. According to them, the Metropolitan Magistrate, who has taken cognizance, has no jurisdiction and therefore, the complaint cannot be sustained on the said ground. It is further submitted by them that the alleged defamatory news article was published in the Deccan Chronicle of Hyderabad Edition, which relates to CC.No.7714/2000 and in Bangalore edition, which relates to CC.No.7716/2000. According to them, the Newspaper does not have any publishing center in Chennai or in any other places in Tamil Nadu nor are the papers distributed in Tamil Nadu. That apart, it does not have any arrangement for distribution of the Newspapers by airmail or other means, excepting in the actual place of publication of the said Newspaper. So, it is contended that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence and the proceedings as against the Petitioners are without jurisdiction.
5. In these Criminal Original Petitions, the sole contention raised by Mr.Sathish Parasaran, the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Chennai has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, since the publication was made in the Hyderabad and Bangalore Editions of Deccan Chronicle and in fact, the Newspaper did not have any publishing center in Chennai and therefore, the complaint cannot be sustained.
6. It is necessary, at this juncture, to refer to Section 179 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which lays down that when a person is accused of a commission of an offence by a reason of anything which has been done and of any consequence, which has ensued such offence may be enquired into or tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensued. Therefore, where an act has been done, which is an offence and the consequence has ensued thereon, both the courts can have jurisdiction to entertain or to take cognizance of the offence.
7. The contention of the Petitioners is that the said Newspaper is published and circulated within Hyderabad City of Andhra Pradesh and Bangalore of Karnataka State and as such, the court at Chennai has no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant. There is no dispute that the Deccan Chronicle containing the offending news item was published in the editions of Hyderabad and Bangalore. According to the complainant, the said daily Newspaper has been circulated throughout India and read by many persons and the same can be read on the website in all computers with an internet connection. It is averred in the complaint that several persons rang up to the Director and other Senior Faculty Members of the Respondent and wrote to them expressing their anguish on reading the report. Although the offending news item was published in the above said two places, the consequence had ensued at Chennai, where the Respondent Institute is functioning and as such, the Metropolitan Magistrate court at Chennai has got jurisdiction.
8. The Apex Court had considered provisions of Section 179 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Nohar Chand (1984-SC-1492). The matter is relating to manufacture of sub standard fertilizer and the marketing of the same at different places. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that the place where the sub standard fertilizer was manufactured and the place where it is marketed, the court has jurisdiction to enquiry into or try the case in both the courts.
9. In the case of M.P.Narayana Pillai Vs. M.P.Chacko (1986-Cri.LJ-2002 (Kerala)), the High Court of Kerala in the matter relating to defamatory proceedings out the news item published and the cognizance taken by the court was challenged held as under:-
“One of the contentions of the Petitioners is that the Magistrate acted illegally in taking cognizance of the offence when he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That contention does not appear to be correct. It is true that the Kalakaumudi Weekly is printed and published from Trivandram. But in order to maintain a prosecution for defamation in a particular Court there need only be publication of the libel within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed. Jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the allegations in the complaint for the purpose of a proceeding under Section 499. The very allegation of the 1st Respondent in the complaint is that it was published at Vaikom also and it was from there that he got and read a copy of it. Being a weekly publication intended to be read by people, it is enough for the complainant to show that the publication was delivered within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the court in order to invest that court with jurisdiction. It need not be shown that the defamatory matter was seen or read by any particular person within the jurisdiction of that court. Since the weekly is being printed and published for the purpose of reading by the people when it is shown that it was published it could be presumed that it was read.”
The same view was reiterated in the case of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Prabhakar S.Pai and another (1984-Cr.LJ-1329).
10. Considering the averments made in the present case, I am in complete agreement with the decisions of the High Court of Kerala that where the offending publication was delivered and read by the complainant, the court at that place would have jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, the Chennai Metropolitan Magistrate Court has got jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and the contention of the Petitioners has no merits.
11. In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed, as devoid of merits.
Srcm
To:
The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Madras
———————–
After pronouncement of the order on 16.07.2009, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has requested that the personal appearance of the Petitioners may be dispensed with before the court below.
2. Considering the said request made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, as it appears to be genuine, the learned Magistrate is directed not to insist on the presence of the Petitioners for the hearings, except on the dates, when substance of the charges should be read over and answering 313 statement and on the date of judgement on the counsel filing a petition under Section 317 of Cr.PC.
Srcm