The Hindu : `Defamation complaint against Tirumavalavan filed within time'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Feb 12, 2004

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

`Defamation complaint against Tirumavalavan filed within time'

By Our Staff Reporter

CHENNAI, FEB. 10. It is the duty of a public prosecutor to file defamation complaints within the limitation period of six months as required under Section 199(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Madras High Court has said.

Justice S. Ashok Kumar, dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by the Dalit Panthers leader, R. Tirumavalavan, seeking to discharge him from a defamation complaint, observed, ``what actually constitutes taking cognisance of (by courts) differs from the filing of a complaint. Filing of a complaint within the period of six months is the duty of the public prosecutor and taking cognisance of the same is the duty of the court, over which the prosecuting agency or the complainant has no control.''

The matter pertains to two public speeches delivered by Mr. Tirumavalavan on February 22, 2000 and March 1, 2000, criticising the then Chennai City Police Commissioner, P. Kalimuthu, and other police officials. On behalf of the Commissioner, the city public prosecutor lodged the complaint on August 21, 2000, last day of the limitation period. However, the complaint was returned as it was not filed by the aggrieved person and was not signed by him. It was presented again on August 25, 2000, when it was taken on file and made over to III Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.

The Dalit Panthers leader challenged its maintainability on the ground that it had neither been filed within the limitation period nor the aggrieved party had moved the court. He described it as a ``vexatious criminal proceeding.''

The sessions judge, however, dismissed Mr. Tirumavalavan's petition stating the defamation complaint had been filed within six months of commission of the offence and that under Section 200 Cr.PC there was no necessity to examine the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint.

Dismissing his present revision petition as well, Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar said, ``the original records were called for and perused. The averments that the complaint was returned for want of signature, sanction and government order and so it was re-presented only on August 25, 2000 are not correct. The fact that the complaint against Mr. Tirumavalavan was filed by the public prosecutor within six months is not in dispute.''

As for the court taking cognisance of the complaint, he said, ``under Section 468(c) of Cr.PC, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years, the period of limitation is three years...The filing of complaint within the period of limitation is only a condition precedent. But taking cognisance of the case is done by the judge of the court.''

Ruling that an act of court could not render infructuous a complaint filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Act, Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar dismissed Mr. Tirumavalavan's petition.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu