1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 43 OF 2009 SANATAN SANSTHA ... Petitioner versus THE STATE OF GOA AND ANR. ... Respondents Shri R. D. Kesarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 20TH JULY, 2009. ORAL ORDER Heard. Challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to the Order dated 5-5-2009 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, upholding the Order dated 23-5-2008 of the learned J.M.F.C., Ponda, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner for want of territorial jurisdiction, under Section 500 IPC. The complaint was filed by the petitioner which is a Public Charitable Trust having its office at Ponda, within the jurisdiction of the J.M.F.C., Ponda, through its Managing Trustee, with the allegation that certain defamatory statements were made by the Respondent on a daily known as 'Janadesh' which is 2 published in Thane District and circulated in Thana and Raigad Districts in the State of Maharashtra. The relevant averments in the complaint, so as to give jurisdiction to the learned J.M.F.C., Ponda, are that: "The complainant states that in the last week of September, 2005, one of the well-wishers sent copy of the said daily 'Janadesh' dated 1-2-2005 to the complainant in its Ashram at Ramnati, Ponda, and pointed out to the said defamatory article. Complainant came to know about defamatory article in Ponda at its Ashram in Ramnati, Ponda". The learned Magistrate(JMFC) in dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction, noted that the daily 'Janadesh' ought to have been published and/or circulated within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. Considering that the said daily was not published and/or circulated within the jurisdiction of that Court, that Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the complaint. Learned Magistrate further held that only because the copy of the said daily was sent to the complainant at its Ashram at Ramnati, Ponda by a well-wisher, it could not be said that the said daily was published and circulated within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court and/or the offence was complete in Goa. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after placing reliance on the case of P. Lankesh and another v. H. Shivappa and another(1994 Cri.L.J. 3510), on which reliance is also placed before this Court by the learned Counsel, came to 3 the conclusion that in that case the newspaper containing alleged defamatory article was circulated or sold at various places though the publication was done only at one place and the question which had come before the Karnataka High Court was as to whether it could be said that the jurisdiction lay only at the place where the newspaper had its printing and publication office, whether the publication can be said to have been done in all places where the newspaper was circulated or offered for sale and the Court came to the conclusion that in such a case there would be publication of the defamatory article in all such other places where it is circulated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate observing that the daily "Janadesh' was not published and/or circulated within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court and only because a copy of the daily was sent to the complainant at Ramnati Ashram by a well-wisher it cannot be said that the said daily was published and/or circulated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ponda Court and the offence was completed in Goa. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has now placed reliance on Section 177 of the Code which, inter alia, provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Contending that the offence under Section 500 IPC was committed within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Ponda when a copy of the daily 'Janadesh' was sent to the petitioner, learned Counsel has also placed reliance on 4 the case of Subramaniam Swamy v. P.S.Pai(1984 Cri. L. J. 1329). Both the cases cited on behalf of the petitioner, as far as the facts go are of no assistance to the case of the petitioner. As already stated, the article was written on a publication which was published in Thana and was circulated in Thana and Raigad Districts in the State of Maharashtra. A well-wisher of the petitioner as claimed by it, sent a copy to the petitioner. Sending a copy to the complainant himself or itself does not amount to either publication or circulation of a defamatory article and that being the position, the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below that the Magistrate at Ponda has no jurisdiction, as no publication or circulation of the alleged defamatory article within the jurisdiction of that Court had taken place, could not be faulted. In a similar situation, the Madras High Court in B. P. Bhaskar v. B. P. Shiva(1993 Cri.L.J. 2685) stated thus: "As already stated, the receipt of notice by the complainant by itself is not sufficient to amount in law as 'publication'. Further, no one in Madras other than the complainant, as already stated, received a copy of such notice containing the so-called scurrilous allegations. In such state of affairs, it cannot be stated that there is any cause for launching of the prosecution at Madras where the consequence of publication did not at all ensue". 5 In view of the above, the petition is dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD