Relying on Apex Court’s Surinder Mohan Vikal decision, Calcutta High Court held as follows:
Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors on 6 Mar 2020In the instant case, the cause of action arose from the date when First Information Report was registered and not from the date on which the complainant was acquitted from the charge.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50050401/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5faa5a1c4653d02a0b1309ab
Relying on Apex Court’s Surinder Mohan Vikal decision, Delhi High Court held that if any offence is made out in a complaint under Section 500 IPC for defamation, Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. is attracted and cognizance of offence should be taken within a period of three years from the date of occurrence.
Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011Citations : [2011 DLT 182 221], [2012 CRICC 1 85], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 4 735], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 2664], [2011 RCR CRI 4 735]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10503637/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e0ae4b014971117b1c7
A division bench of Supreme Court held that, the defamation has to be filed with in time limitation while also referring to 468, 469 and 470 CrPC.
Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978It would thus appear that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1) of section 468 which prohibits every Court from taking cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is hardly necessary to say that statutes of limitation have legislative policy behind them. For instance, they shut out belated and dormant claims in order to save the accused from unnecessary harassment. They also save the accused from the risk of having to face trial at a time when his evidence might have been lost because of the delay on the part of the prosecutor. As has been stated, a bar to the taking of cognizance has been prescribed under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to it in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Citations : [1978 SCC 2 403], [1978 SCR 3 434], [1978 CAR 113], [1978 CRLR SC 158], [1978 SCC CR 215], [1978 AIR SC 486], [1978 AIR SC 786], [1978 AIR SC 986], [1978 SCC CRI 215], [1978 CRLJ SC 764]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/885750/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcae4b014971140d573
A division bench of Apex Court passed this Judgment regd
Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971After a consideration of the various decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that the propositions laid down in English decisions dealing with libel that the actual words alleged to be used must be stated in the indictment cannot be applied on all fours when dealing with the cases of defamation by spoken words under Section 499 I. P. C. it will be highly desirable no doubt if the actual words stated to have been used by an accused and which are alleged to be defamatory are reproduced by the complainant. The actual words used or the statements made may be reproduced verbatim by the complainant if the words are few and the statement is very brief. But in cases where the words spoken are too many or the statements made are too long, in our opinion, it will be the height of technicality to insist that the actual words and the entire statements should be reproduced verbatim. The object of having, if possible, the actual words or the statements before the court is to enable it to consider whether those words or the statements are defamatory in nature. That purpose or object will be served if the complainant is able to reproduce in his complaint or evidence in a substantial measure the words of imputation alleged to have been uttered. If the statements or the words placed before the court by the complainant are held to be not defamatory, it will mean that the complainant will have to lose. Therefore it is to his interest to get a proper adjudication from, the court that as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court. But a complaint cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that the actual words spoken or the statements made have not been stated in the complaint. From the point of view of accused also it is necessary that the matters alleged to be defamatory in the complaint must be so stated as to enable them to know the nature of the allegations that they have to meet.
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1946272/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab73e4b014971140c842
Citations:
Course of events in this case at High Court of Karnataka.
In this landmark classic case, Supreme Court has held that,
16. In a recent judgment of the House of Lords Rumping v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1962 3 All ER 256 Rumping the in mate of a Dutch ship was tried for murder committed on board the ship. Part of the evidence for the prosecution admitted at the trial consisted of a letter that RumpingĀ had written to his wife in Holland which amounted to a confession. Rumping had written the letter on the day of the killing, and had handed the letter in a closed envelope to a member of the crew requesting him to post it as soon as the ship arrived at the port outside England. After the appellant was arrested, the member of the crew handed the envelope to the captain of the ship who handed it over to the police. The member of the crew, the captain and the translator of the letter gave evidence at the trial, but the wife was not called as witness. It was held that the letter was admissible in evidence. Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Lord Hodson and Lord Pearce were of the view that at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy. Accordingly except where the spouse to whom the communication is made is a witness and claims privilege from disclosure under the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (of which the terms are similar to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act though not identical), evidence as to communications between husband and wife during marriage is admissible in criminal proceedings.
17. The question whether the complainant in this case is an agent of the wife because he has received the letters from the wife and may be permitted to give evidence is a matter on which no opinion at this stage can be expressed. The complainant claims that he has been defamed by the writing of the letters. The letters are in his possession and are available for being tendered in evidence. We see no reason why inquiry into that complaint should, on the preliminary contentions raised, be prohibited. If the complainant seeks to support his case only upon the evidence of the wife of the accused, he may be met with the bar of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whether he will be able to prove the letters in any other manner is a matter which must be left to be determined at the trial and cannot be made the subject-matter of an enquiry at this stage.
M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968Supreme Court of India version:
M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968 CasemineCase Mine version:
Citations: [1969 SCR 2 692], [1970 AIR SC 1876], [968 KERLT 904], [1950 AIR TC 38], [1969 SCC 1 37], [1970 CAR 210], [1970 CRLJ 0 1651], [1970 CRI LJ 1651]
Indiankanoon.org or ILR link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1159106/ or http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/21403
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In this landmark judgment by old Madras High Court, it was held that the accusations made in a complaint to Magistrate do NOT have absolute privilege and only have qualified privilege as provided under section 499 of IPC. Such accusations are liable for defamation if NOT protected by exception 8.
Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 ILRIndian Law Review version (Original):
Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926Indiankanoon Version:
Citations: [49 Mad. 728], [A. I. R. (18) 1926 Mad. 906], [1926 (27) Cri LJ 1026], [AIR 1926 Mad 906], [(1926) 51 MLJ 112],
Indiankanoon.org or ILR link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1159106/ or http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/21403
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Kerala High Court hass held that,
M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.
Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758], [2006 (2) KLT 122]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1547517/
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Based on landmark judgments here, here and here, Karnataka High Court held that,
Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56093e42e4b0149711231bf9
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Madras High Court held that,
Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965It is clear from what I have stated that the decision is hardly applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision refers to a publication in a paper and it should be proved that the accused was responsible for the publication. But in this case, the defamatory matter contained in the plaint wasĀ admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter.
Citations: [AIR 1966 Mad 363], [1966 CriLJ 1149], [1966 MLJ 1 547], [1965 SCC ONLINE MAD 248], [1966 MAD LJ 1 547],
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735036/
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Bad Behavior has blocked 743 access attempts in the last 7 days.
