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 Sect. 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 Sect. 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 Sect. 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 (1) 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 Sect. 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 . 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 Sect. 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for presentation to the proper Court.
N. R. R.Order set aside.