Rathinam Pillai vs Emperor

Sundaram Chetty, J.—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 u/s 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 u/s

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 u/s 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 AIR 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 u/s 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 u/s 201, Criminal P. C, for presentation to the proper Court.