Skip to content


Rathinam Pillai Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932Mad427
AppellantRathinam Pillai
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredGanesh Lal v. Nand Kishore
Excerpt:
- .....the first of the offence under section 182 is the giving of the information, so as to cause the public servant to act on it. the offence is completed, when the information reaches the public servant. if for some reason, the information has not at all reached the public servant, there will be no offence under section 182 though by reason of posting such a letter, the accused, may be charged for having attempted to commit such an offence. but here, the charge is not for an attempt to commit the offence mentioned above. the decision in krishnamurthi ayyar v. parasurama ayyar a.i.r. 1923 mad. 666, relied on by the learned public prosecutor, is distinguishable, for the simple reason, that the offence of defamation is committed either at the place where the imputation in writing is made or.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. The point raised in this case is one of jurisdiction. The charge seems to be that the first accused has given false information to the District Superintendant of Police, Tanjore, with intent to cause injury to another person--an offence Under Section 182, I. P. C. The letter, containing the alleged false information was posted at Kumbakonam and reached the District Superintendant at Tanjore. The first of the offence Under Section 182 is the giving of the information, so as to cause the public servant to act on it. The offence is completed, when the information reaches the public servant. If for some reason, the information has not at all reached the public servant, there will be no offence Under Section 182 though by reason of posting such a letter, the accused, may be charged for having attempted to commit such an offence. But here, the charge is not for an attempt to commit the offence mentioned above. The decision in Krishnamurthi Ayyar v. Parasurama Ayyar A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 666, relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor, is distinguishable, for the simple reason, that the offence of defamation is committed either at the place where the imputation in writing is made or published, and in the aforesaid case, the letter was posted in Madras, but addressed to Tinnevelly, and therefore the imputation in writing can be deemed to have been made at Madras, and published at Tinnevelly. I think the offence Under Section 182, I. P. C, must be taken to have been committed at Tanjore. The consequence of any such offence must be a part and parcel of it, and not something independent of it: vide Ganesh Lal v. Nand Kishore [1912] 34 All. 487. The order of the learned Magistrate is set aside, as he has no jurisdiction to try this case, and he is directed to return the complaint Under Section 201, Criminal P. C, for presentation to the proper Court.


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