Judgment This is an appeal by the accused who has been convicted by the Additional District Magistrate, Krishna, for an offence under section 124-A, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant was the editor, printer and publisher of a Telugu daily newspaper called “Prajasakthi” printed at the Prajasakthi Press, Vijayawada. Under section 4 of Act XXV of 1867, the accused made the declaration before the District Magistrate as the manager of the press known as Prajasakthi Press, Vijayawada. Exhibit P-2, dated 29th March, 1943, is the declaration. He continued to be the printer and publisher till he was arrested on 31st January, 1948. He has since been in jail and even now is in jail. The article in question is said to have been published in the issue of the paper, dated 9th April, 1948, under the caption “Capitalist Congress Government started country wide military raids on people forces.” There is no doubt that what is contained in the article will fall within the scope of section 124-A. But the question is whether the accused who was in jail at the time of the publication of the article can still be convicted of the offence under section 124-A merely because he did not write to the District Magistrate that he ceased to be the publisher and printer of the paper after his arrest on 31st January, 1948. It has been held in Ramaswami v. Lokamada1, that though a declaration was prima facie proof of publication by the editor, the presumption raised can be rebutted. It was held that it would be a safe answer to the charge if the accused showed that he entrusted in good faith the temporary management of his paper to a competent person in his absence and the libel was published without his knowledge. In Harisarvothama Rao v. King-Emperor1, it was held that a person making a statutory declaration under Act XXV of 1867 that he is the printer and publisher of the newspaper is presumably liable as such printer and publisher but he may rebut such a presumption. At page 344 the learned judges say: "It would be open to the proprietor to rebut it and prove that the publication was, in fact, not authorised by him. Act XXV of 1867 has nothing to do with the liability of the proprietor of the newspaper. At page 344 the learned judges say: "It would be open to the proprietor to rebut it and prove that the publication was, in fact, not authorised by him. Act XXV of 1867 has nothing to do with the liability of the proprietor of the newspaper. It establishes the prima facts liability as publisher of the person who is declared the printer and publisher. In his case the prosecution need not give any evidence that he is, in fact, the publisher. It is enough to produce the declaration......The proprietor’s liability for the publication of the matter must be established to the satisfaction of the Court by direct proof or as a matter of reasonable inference from all the facts of the case. It is clear therefore from the observations in the decisions cited above that though the declaration may be prima facie evidence that he was the printer and publisher of the article, it is open to the accused to prove that he is not in fact the publisher and at the time it was published he could have had no hand in it. It is conceded by the Public Prosecutor that the accused was arrested on 31st January, 1948, and on the day of the publication of the article, i.e., 9th April, 1948, he had no control over the press. There is no evidence suggesting that he had any such control. He cannot therefore he held liable for the publication of the article on 9th April, 1948, when he was inside jail. The conviction and sentence are therefore set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence. K.C. ----- Appeal allowed.