Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Valmiki Faleiro, filed four criminal revision applications challenging the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, taking cognizance of complaints filed against him for offences under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The complaints alleged that the applicant had published defamatory statements against the respondents in a newspaper called 'The Navhind Times' on various dates in 2001 and 2002. The applicant contended that the complaints were barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC as they were filed beyond one year from the date of the first publication. The court examined the issue of limitation and held that each publication of a defamatory statement constitutes a separate offence, and the period of limitation runs from the date of each publication. Since the complaints were filed within one year of the last publication, they were within limitation. The court also rejected the argument that defamation is a continuing offence, holding that the offence is completed upon publication and Section 472 CrPC does not apply. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of sanction under Section 199 CrPC, noting that no sanction is required when the defamatory matter relates to the conduct of a public servant as a public servant. The court dismissed all four revision applications, upholding the Magistrate's orders taking cognizance of the complaints.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Limitation - Section 468 CrPC, Section 499 IPC - Complaints filed beyond one year from publication - Held that each publication of a defamatory statement is a separate offence, and limitation runs from the date of each publication, not from the first publication. Complaints filed within one year of the last publication are within limitation (Paras 5-10).
B) Criminal Law - Continuing Offence - Defamation - Section 472 CrPC - Defamation is not a continuing offence; it is completed upon publication. Therefore, Section 472 CrPC does not apply to extend limitation (Paras 5-10).
C) Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 199 CrPC - No sanction required for prosecution of defamation against a public servant when the defamatory matter relates to his conduct as a public servant, as per Explanation to Section 199(2) CrPC (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal complaints for defamation filed beyond one year from the date of publication are barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC, and whether the offence of defamation is a continuing offence.
Final Decision
The court dismissed all four criminal revision applications, upholding the Magistrate's orders taking cognizance of the complaints.
Law Points
- Defamation
- Limitation for criminal complaints
- Continuing offence
- Section 468 CrPC
- Section 499 IPC
- Section 500 IPC
- Section 501 IPC
- Section 502 IPC
- Section 199 CrPC
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 23
Criminal Revision Application Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 of 2004
S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Naik for Applicant; M. S. Sonak for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in CRA 24/2004; S. N. Sardessai, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 3 in CRA 24/2004 and Respondent No. 2 in others; M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar for Respondent No. 1 in CRA 25, 26, 27/2004
Lauriana Fernandes e Diniz and others; Vilas Vaicunthrao Sardessai and State; Arun Sinha and State; Dempo Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision applications challenging the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of defamation complaints.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to quash the complaints and the orders taking cognizance on the ground of limitation and lack of sanction.
Filing Reason
The applicant published defamatory statements against the respondents in a newspaper, leading to criminal complaints for defamation.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, took cognizance of the complaints and issued process against the applicant.
Issues
Whether the criminal complaints for defamation are barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC.
Whether the offence of defamation is a continuing offence attracting Section 472 CrPC.
Whether sanction under Section 199 CrPC is required for prosecution of a public servant for defamation.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the complaints were filed beyond one year from the date of publication and thus barred by limitation.
The applicant contended that defamation is a continuing offence and limitation should run from the last publication.
The respondents argued that each publication is a separate offence and complaints were within limitation.
The respondents submitted that no sanction is required as the defamatory matter related to the applicant's conduct as a public servant.
Ratio Decidendi
Each publication of a defamatory statement constitutes a separate offence, and the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC runs from the date of each publication. Defamation is not a continuing offence; it is completed upon publication. No sanction under Section 199 CrPC is required when the defamatory matter relates to the conduct of a public servant as a public servant.
Judgment Excerpts
Each publication of a defamatory statement is a separate offence and the period of limitation runs from the date of each publication.
Defamation is not a continuing offence; it is completed upon publication.
No sanction is required for prosecution of a public servant for defamation when the defamatory matter relates to his conduct as a public servant.
Procedural History
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, took cognizance of complaints filed by the respondents against the applicant for defamation. The applicant filed criminal revision applications before the High Court challenging those orders.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 499, 500, 501, 502
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 199, 468, 469, 472
