I.R.Bhagwan Singh v. Indian Institute of Technology, Madras by its Registrar, Professor MR Pranesh Chennai-36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANCrl.OP.Nos.4526 & 4528/20011.R.Bhagwan Singh, Reporter,Deccan Chronicle, Chennai-411st Petitioner in both Cr.OPs2.O.ThomasPetitioner in Cr.OP.4526/01 VsIndian Institute of Technology, Madrasby its Registrar, Professor MR PraneshChennai-36Respondent in both Cr.OPsPrayer:- These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to dispensewith the production of the certified copy of the complaint inCC.No.7714 & 7716/2000 which copy is yet to be served upon thePetitioner, stay all further proceedings in CC.No.7714 7716/2000pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,Chennai, pending disposal of the above petition, dispense withappearance of the Petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate,Saidapet, Chennai in relation to CC.No.7714 7716/2000 pendingdisposa of the above petition and to call for the records inCC.No.7714 7716/2000 pending on the file of the MetropolitanMagistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same, in so far as itrelates to the Petitioners.For Petitioner:Mr.Sathish ParasaranFor Respondent :Mr.Vijaya Narayanan, SC forMr.R.ParthibanORDER These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to quash theproceedings in CC.Nos.7714 and 7716/2000 on the file of the learnedMetropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in so far as thePetitioners, viz. R.Bhagwan Singh and O.Thomas, who are theReporter and the Publisher of the English Daily Newspaper "DeccanChronicle" are concerned. 2. The brief facts are stated as follows:-The Respondent/complainant, viz. Indian Institute ofTechnology has been maintaining a very high standard in technical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ education in India and has acquired a name for its academicexcellence not only in India, but throughout the world. Apublication was made in the English Daily Newspaper "DeccanChronicle" dated 8.8.2000 in Hyderabad and Bangalore Editions,which reads as under:-"AP TRIBAL GIRL FIGHTS HER WAY INTO IIT, BRILLIANTSTUDENT DECLARED FAILED, TOPS AFTER RE-EXAMINATION.An Andhra tribal girl has managed to wrest admissioninto the prestigious IIT here after waging a do—or-diebattle against the administration, which first declaredher as failed but back tracked subsequently in the faceof evidence in her favour and the threat of agitationby the Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, a dalit party.Ms.Sujee Teppal, who belongs to the Kammara Tribe inBhimvaram, was so badly shaken up on learning that shefailed in physics despite topping mathematics andchemistry papers, that she even attempted suicide andwas saved at the nick of time by Apollo Hospital here,according to reliable sources.Extensive investigations in the Institute reveal "Sujeewas failed deliberately in the Physics paper despitedoing well-one suggestion widely heard in the institutecorridors was that the concern teacher "punished" herbecause she was "too smart" for his liking"".The Respondent has filed the complaint against R.Bhagwan Singh, theReporter, M.J.Akbar, the Editor-in-Chief and O.Thomas, thePublisher of Deccan Chronicle, arraying them as A1 to A3 forpreparing and publishing the said news item in the Deccan Chronicledated 8.8.2000 with the common intention to malign and defame thecomplainant and thereby committed the offence punishable underSections 120(b), 500, 501, 502 read with 34 and 120 of IPC.3. The complainant has stated in the complaint that theaforesaid report is totally and grossly misleading and highlydefamatory. It is further stated that the tribal girl by nameSujee joined the preparatory course in the year 1999 along with 22others and in February 2000, Sujee's father was informed by theCoordinator of the Preparatory Course that her performance was notupto the mark in Physics in First Term of the Course and she mustput in a great effort in that subject. The father of Sujee sent areply to the Director, thanking the Director for the suggestionsmade and assuring that his daughter would do well in future. It isfurther stated that Sujee along with 16 other students was alsoinformed to improve their performance in physics. Out of 23students attended the Preparatory 1999 Course, about 1/3rd failedand Sujee was also one among them, who failed to secure the passmarks in the Examination. However, the offending news itemproceeded maliciously as if she stood first among the 6 candidatesin the test, which is false and without any basis. Further a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ perusal of the offending news item would make it clear that theheading note "teacher punished Sujee because she was too smart forhis liking" is totally false. 4. The Petitioners have submitted that they do not proposeto traverse on the merits of the case, even while maintaining thatthe very complaint is frivolous and wholly devoid of merits.According to them, the Metropolitan Magistrate, who has takencognizance, has no jurisdiction and therefore, the complaint cannotbe sustained on the said ground. It is further submitted by themthat the alleged defamatory news article was published in theDeccan Chronicle of Hyderabad Edition, which relates toCC.No.7714/2000 and in Bangalore edition, which relates toCC.No.7716/2000. According to them, the Newspaper does not haveany publishing center in Chennai or in any other places in TamilNadu nor are the papers distributed in Tamil Nadu. That apart, itdoes not have any arrangement for distribution of the Newspapers byairmail or other means, excepting in the actual place ofpublication of the said Newspaper. So, it is contended that thelearned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance ofoffence and the proceedings as against the Petitioners are withoutjurisdiction. 5. In these Criminal Original Petitions, the solecontention raised by Mr.Sathish Parasaran, the learned counsel forthe Petitioners is that the Metropolitan Magistrate Court atChennai has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence,since the publication was made in the Hyderabad and BangaloreEditions of Deccan Chronicle and in fact, the Newspaper did nothave any publishing center in Chennai and therefore, the complaintcannot be sustained.6. It is necessary, at this juncture, to refer to Section179 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which lays down that when aperson is accused of a commission of an offence by a reason ofanything which has been done and of any consequence, which hasensued such offence may be enquired into or tried by a court withinthe local limits of whose jurisdiction, any such thing has beendone, or any such consequence has ensued. Therefore, where an acthas been done, which is an offence and the consequence has ensuedthereon, both the courts can have jurisdiction to entertain or totake cognizance of the offence.7. The contention of the Petitioners is that the saidNewspaper is published and circulated within Hyderabad City ofAndhra Pradesh and Bangalore of Karnataka State and as such, thecourt at Chennai has no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant.There is no dispute that the Deccan Chronicle containing theoffending news item was published in the editions of Hyderabad andBangalore. According to the complainant, the said daily Newspaperhas been circulated throughout India and read by many persons andthe same can be read on the website in all computers with aninternet connection. It is averred in the complaint that severalpersons rang up to the Director and other Senior Faculty Members of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Respondent and wrote to them expressing their anguish onreading the report. Although the offending news item was publishedin the above said two places, the consequence had ensued atChennai, 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 179of Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of State of Punjab Vs.Nohar Chand (1984-SC-1492). The matter is relating to manufactureof sub standard fertilizer and the marketing of the same atdifferent places. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that theplace where the sub standard fertilizer was manufactured and theplace where it is marketed, the court has jurisdiction to enquiryinto 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 thematter relating to defamatory proceedings out the news itempublished and the cognizance taken by the court was challenged heldas under:-"One of the contentions of the Petitioners is that theMagistrate acted illegally in taking cognizance of theoffence when he had no territorial jurisdiction toentertain the complaint. That contention does notappear to be correct. It is true that the KalakaumudiWeekly is printed and published from Trivandram. Butin order to maintain a prosecution for defamation in aparticular Court there need only be publication of thelibel within the jurisdiction of the court where thecomplaint is filed. Jurisdiction has to be decided onthe basis of the allegations in the complaint for thepurpose of a proceeding under Section 499. The veryallegation of the 1st Respondent in the complaint isthat it was published at Vaikom also and it was fromthere that he got and read a copy of it. Being aweekly publication intended to be read by people, it isenough for the complainant to show that the publicationwas delivered within the limits of the territorialjurisdiction of the court in order to invest that courtwith jurisdiction. It need not be shown that thedefamatory matter was seen or read by any particularperson within the jurisdiction of that court. Sincethe weekly is being printed and published for thepurpose of reading by the people when it is shown thatit was published it could be presumed that it wasread."The same view was reiterated in the case of Dr.Subramaniam SwamyVs. Prabhakar S.Pai and another (1984-Cr.LJ-1329).10. Considering the averments made in the present case, Iam in complete agreement with the decisions of the High Court ofKerala that where the offending publication was delivered and read https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the complainant, the court at that place would have jurisdictionto try the case. Therefore, the Chennai Metropolitan MagistrateCourt has got jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and thecontention of the Petitioners has no merits.11. In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions aredismissed, as devoid of merits. After pronouncement of the order on 16.07.2009, the learnedcounsel for the Petitioners has requested that the personalappearance of the Petitioners may be dispensed with before thecourt below.2. Considering the said request made by the learned counsel forthe Petitioners, as it appears to be genuine, the learnedMagistrate is directed not to insist on the presence of thePetitioners for the hearings, except on the dates, when substanceof the charges should be read over and answering 313 statement andon the date of judgement on the counsel filing a petition underSection 317 of Cr.PC.Srcm Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Saitapet.2. -do- Through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai.Pre Delivery Order inCrl.OP.Nos.4526 & 4528/2001SSK(CO)EU 18.8.2009.