Judgment :- 1. This is a petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint in CC 147/86 Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kozhikode. Only one of the accused is before this court, though the prayer is to quash the complaint. The complaint was filed by the respondent, an advocate of the Kozhikode Bar. Accused are a newspaper 'Malayala Manorama', its Chief Editor, Printer and Publisher and Correspondent Kalpetta. 2. A news item appeared in the Malayala Manorama dated 29-4-86, entitled "accused vanished, lady advocate chased away by public". The material on record shows that the complainant was appearing for one Balakrishnan, accused in a murder case. He was enlarged on bail. Sureties were shown as one Chandu and Neelakantan. Subsequently, Chandu and Neelakantan appeared before court and stated that they were not the sureties, that somebody impersonated them, and that they were not possessed of any properties. 3. Meanwhile, one of the witnesses in the case moved the court of Session by Crl. MP 640/84 to cancel the bail granted to Balakrishnan, on the ground that be had threatened witnesses with dire consequences, if they deposed against him. By orders dated 13-8-84 in Crl. M. P. 640/84, bail was cancelled. Balakrishnan then absconded. 4. Two years later on 29-4-86 the news item complained of was published. A brief synopsis of the report would be as under: "Public incensed by the absconding of the accused, abused the lady advocate and chased her away as she was proceeding to the house of Balakrishnan. While running, she tripped on her sari and fell down .... On 16-6-84, it was on the solvency bonds of Chandu and Neelakantan for Rs. 10,000/- that the lady advocate bailed out the accused. Bail was later cancelled, when it was proved that bonds of Chandu and Neelakantan were used without their knowledge". 5. Complaint states, inter alia, "the report is absolutely false that it really has harmed and brought down her reputation... that the publication meant to 'bring down the good reputation the complainant individually as well as a progressive advocate and to make the complainant as a contemptible and shunned Person' (whatever that means)... detrimentally affected her professional work and activities". She says, and it cannot be disputed that Malayala Manorama is a "prominent newspaper" with wide publicity. 6. that the publication meant to 'bring down the good reputation the complainant individually as well as a progressive advocate and to make the complainant as a contemptible and shunned Person' (whatever that means)... detrimentally affected her professional work and activities". She says, and it cannot be disputed that Malayala Manorama is a "prominent newspaper" with wide publicity. 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that accused have no qualms about defending themselves, but that a larger issue is involved. If every report is to take them to court, it would lead to difficult situations, as the press must discharge its duties, fearlessly. True, press must play a fearless role for good causes, for, 'if the trumpet gave an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle' (St. Paul). At once, the liberty of the press by its history and connotation have certain essential attributes It will not flinch before truth, but it is no 'poison pen' either. The freedom that the press enjoys has its frontiers. In the instant case, whether it has transgressed its frontiers or not, does not arise for consideration in these proceedings. Counsel further submits that 'correctness or otherwise of the facts stated in the report might not be very relevant' that the news item is not in any way defamatory of any individual that "nowhere it is stated either directly or by innuendo that the conduct of the lawyer was in any way reprehensible" and that the complaint does not disclose an offence. 7. It is only the last of these contentions that merits consideration in these proceedings. If the petitioner succeeds on this, no other question would arise, if not, other contentions will have to be considered by the magistrate below. 8. Counsel for petitioner would submit that no offence was meant, that the tenor of the report was not derogatory and that there was only a statement of fact. 9. On the contrary, complainant would submit that the report contains a clear innuendo, portraying her in an unfavourable light, both as a person and as a professional. Respondent who appeared in person laid stress on the earlier part of the report, dealing with her fall and stated that she was caricatured so as to harm her reputation. I fail to see how? Respondent who appeared in person laid stress on the earlier part of the report, dealing with her fall and stated that she was caricatured so as to harm her reputation. I fail to see how? She would further say that the report is 'false', and that no more is required to make out the offence and that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under S.482 Cr. PC should not examine whether the report was made intending to harm the reputation, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation, will barm the reputation of person. I cannot assent to the proportion of law stated. For the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the complaint on the face of it discloses an offence, court will have to reckon this aspect. It is equally difficult to agree with the enunciation, that the reported fall would invite the offence. 10. Be that as it may, there is another aspect which merits consideration. The latter part of the report states that bail was cancelled, as the bonds of Chandu and Neelakantan were used without their knowledge. The order of the Sessions Court in Crl. MP 640/84 shows that the bail was not cancelled for this reason. The report refers to the lately advocate bailing accused out, on the bonds of Chandu and Neelakantan and states that bonds are fabricated. Whether the nature and sequence of events would suggest that the lady advocate was instrumental to the accused being released on bail on fabricated bond, and whether this would tend to lower her reputation are matters to be decided on evidence. A chronicle of events is also significant. The crime was in August 1982. Bail was cancelled and accused absconded in 1984. The report is two years later in 1986. Whether a report two years later is an attempt to put the complainant on the centre stage with the lights of adverse publicity also has to be considered. It is difficult to say that the allegations if accented do not constitute an offence. I say no more. 11. There is one point not raised, but well settled in law that merits notice. That touches upon the liability of the Chief Editor. An editor is liable for the material published by reason of S 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (Act 25 of 1867). I say no more. 11. There is one point not raised, but well settled in law that merits notice. That touches upon the liability of the Chief Editor. An editor is liable for the material published by reason of S 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (Act 25 of 1867). Editor is defined in S.1(1) of the Act as the person selecting the material for publication The definition is not by nomenclature but functional. The sweep and ambit of the section considered by the Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Choudhury (AIR. 1968 SC 110). in D.P. Mishra v. K. Sharma (AIR 1971 SC 856) and in C.H. Muhammad Koya v. Muthu Koya (AIR 1979 SC 154). In MuthuKoya's case, Fazal Ali. J. speaking for the court said: "the Press Act does not recognise any other legal entity except the editor in so far as the responsibilities of that office are concerned. Therefore, mere mention of the name of the Chief Editor is neither here nor there, nor does it in any way attract the provisions of the Press Act particularly S.7". In the complaint, there is no averment that the Chief Editor was the person who selected the material for publication or that he was in any manner responsible for its publication. There is a vague assertion in Para.16 that the second accused as the Chief Editor and the other accused are chargeable for the offence. The broad assertion is too transparent, to stand scrutiny in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court. The complaint in so far as it relates to the Chief Editor therefore cannot be preceded with. 12. I make it clear that T express no opinion on the merits of the case, on fact or law. 13. There is one rueful thought lingering; should the member of an honoured profession and the press that has spoken for nobler causes, find themselves in positions in which they have found themselves? Restraint and dignity are virtues in all walks of life. Complaint in so far as it relates to the Chief Editor, Malayala Manorama is quashed. Court below will proceed with the complaint against, the other accused.