Skip to content


In Re: Rathinam Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in137Ind.Cas.333
AppellantIn Re: Rathinam Pillai
Cases Referred(Vide Ganeshi Lal v. Nand Kishore
Excerpt:
penal code (xlv of 1860), section 182 - offence under, when completed--gist of the offence--jurisdiction. - .....the gist 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 krishnamurthy aiyar v. parasurama aiyar 72 ind. cas. 69 : 44 m.l.j. 648 : 32 m.l.t. 164 : 24 cri. l.j. 309 : 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.....
Judgment:

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 Superintendent of Police, Tanjore, with intent to cause injury to another person--an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The letter containing the alleged false information was posted at Kumbakonam and reached the District Superintendent at Tanjore. The gist 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 Krishnamurthy Aiyar v. Parasurama Aiyar 72 Ind. Cas. 69 : 44 M.L.J. 648 : 32 M.L.T. 164 : 24 Cri. L.J. 309 : 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 of the Indian Penal Code 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 Ganeshi Lal v. Nand Kishore 15 Ind. Cas. 319 : 34 A. 487 : 10 A.L.J. 45 : 13 Cri. L.J. 479. 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for presentation to the proper Court.


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