Skip to content


M.R. Krishnamurthy Aiyar Vs. C.V. Parasurama Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1923Mad666; (1923)44MLJ648
AppellantM.R. Krishnamurthy Aiyar
RespondentC.V. Parasurama Aiyar
Cases Referred and The Queen v. Ameer Khan and Ors.
Excerpt:
- orderspencer, 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 (885)106 e.r. 873 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.
Judgment:
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 (885)106 E.R. 873 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //