In Re: T.M. Sivaprakasam Pillai

Govinda Menon, J.—This is an application to quash the charge framed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam, in C.C. No.

47 of 1947, wherein a charge u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the petitioner.

The short facts leading up to this prosecution are that the petitioner sent a communication to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, alleging

that the Village Munsiff of Patteeswaram had received illegal gratification from one Thanu Kothan, an offence punishable u/s 161 of the Indian

Penal Code, and this complaint on investigation was found to be absolutely groundless. Thereupon a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner

for an offence u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code. After having examined the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional First Class Magistrate

has framed the charge u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the statement filed by the petitioner, he objected to the jurisdiction of that (Court for taking cognizance of this offence on the ground that there

was no territorial jurisdiction for the Additional First Class Magistrate to enquire into the case. The complaint, though written and posted at

Kumbakonam, was addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, so that the offence u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code, viz., that of

falsely charging a person with having committed an offence took place only when the letter was received in Madras and opened in the Office of the

Inspector General of Police, Madras. This contention was not accepted by the lower Court and therefore the petitioner comes up to this Court to

have the charge quashed.

Reliance is placed on a decision of Sundaram Chetti,J., in Rathinam Pillai Vs. Emperor, for the proposition that the offence was committed only

at the place where the false charge was laid and not at the place where the letter was posted. In that case, a letter containing alleged false

information was posted at Kumbakonam. and reached the District Superintendent of Police at Tanjore. The prosecution was initiated at

Kumbakonam and the learned Judge therefore held that the offence was completed only when the information reached the Public Servant at

Tanjore.

If for some reason the information has not at all reached the public servant there will be no offence u/s 182 of the Indian Penal Code though by

reason of posting such a letter, the accused may be charged for having attempted to commit such an offence.

On this ground, the decision of that learned Judge was that the Magistrate at Kumbakonam had no jurisdiction to try the case and he was

directed to return the complaint u/s 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Another case on which Mr. Rajagopalachari lays stress is that in the

District Magistrate of Cuddappah v. Syed Abdul Kareem (1943) 1 M.L.J. 467 where Horwill, J., in similar circumstances held that where a false

complaint against a taluk office clerk that he demanded a bribe was sent to his superior officer, the Collector and the prosecution was launched at

the place where the letter was written but not at the place where the letter was received, it was held that the trial was illegal as the Court had no

territorial jurisdiction.The case in Rathinam Pillai v. Emperor1, deals with an offence u/s 182 of the Indian Penal Code and from the report it is not

possible to find out what the offence was, that was the subject-matter of the prosecution in The District Magistrate, Cuddappah v. Syed Abdul

Kareem2. Here the petitioner is charged with an offence u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code for falsely charging a person with having committed an

offence.

The question for consideration is where was the false charge made. Is it at the place where the letter was posted or is it at the place where the

letter was received? The communication of the false accusation is, in fact, the laying of the false charge and unless the matter is actually

communicated to the superior officer it cannot be said that a false charge has been made out. If a person intending in his mind to make a false

charge writes down something and keeps it to himself, such an act would not amount to ""charging falsely"". Therefore, the offence can be said to be

completed only when the letter reached the destination, i.e., the office of the Inspector General of Police, Madras. The decisions already quoted

are authority, that in cases u/s 182 of the Indian Penal Code the giving of false information becomes an offence only when it is actually imparted;

much more so in a case u/s 211 where the intimation becomes a false charge only when it is laid before the superior officer. The intention to do the

criminal act is no crime and unless the charge is actually made that intention is not translated into action. The learned Public Prosecutor contends

that by the mere posting of the letter, there is an overt act amounting to an attempt to commit an offence and relies upon the observations of

Sundaram Chetti, J., in the case above mentioned. That learned Judge in spite of the suggestion thrown out, that the act might amount to an attempt

to commit an offence, did not, in fact, decide to that effect. I do not consider that by merely posting the letter, the petitioner, in this case, has

attempted to commit the offence. Moreover, the charge framed by the lower Court is not for an attempt to commit the crime. Though Section 238

(2-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that where a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit

such offence although the attempt is not separately charged, such a power presupposes the jurisdiction in the Court to try the offence charged. I

can find no authority or justification for holding that a Court which has no territorial jurisdiction to enquire into and try an offence can do so and

convict the accused of an attempt to commit the same even when it may have jurisdiction to enquire into and try the offence of attempt. In this

view, the lower Court which has taken cognizance of the offence has acted without jurisdiction, and I therefore quash the charge framed and direct

that the complaint or charge sheet may be returned for presentation to the proper Court.