JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Kota dated 6.9.2000. 2. In nut-shell, it has been prayed that the order taking cognizance may be quashed. According to the petitioner, he is the Director of M/s. Indian Express Newspaper (B) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1950 and having its registered office at Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai. The said company has various publications including the 'Indian Express', 'Jansatta', 'Financial Express', Samka lcen','Lok Prabha', 'Loksatta' and others. The publications of the said company are published simultaneously from all over India including in various vernacular languages, most of which are not known to the petitioner. By virtue of being Jt. Managing Director of the company and in terms of a Board Resolution passed in the Board meeting of the company on 24.9.1991, the petitioner was designated as the 'Managing Editor' of all the publications of the company. As Managing Editor, the responsibility of the petitioner was to lay down the overall policy and to provide a congenial atmosphere for the efficacious publication of the various titles. According to him, he was not responsible for or involved in the selection of the matter to be published in all the daily newspapers of the company. Even otherwise, it was not possible for him to do so. 3. The daily Hindi new spaper Jansatta which was published from Delhi, published a news on 21.1.1992 titled as "Kota Ka Natwar Lal Videsh Me Sakriye-Kuch Bhi Assmbhav Nahin Padam Sambhav Ke Liye". Aggrieved by this publication of the said article, the said Padam Sambhav Jain took it to be a defamatory article and filed a criminal complaint titled as Padam Sambhav Jain v. Prabhash Joshi & Others under Section 500, IPC before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kota. The learned Magistrate made an inquiry under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after recording evidence of complainant, as well as of some witnesses and on going through the defamatory matter in the newspaper took cognizance against certain persons including the petitioner. The learned Magistrate made an inquiry under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after recording evidence of complainant, as well as of some witnesses and on going through the defamatory matter in the newspaper took cognizance against certain persons including the petitioner. A petition tinder Section 482, Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner which substantially prayed for dropping/ quashing of the entire proceedings relating to the complaint-but the petition was disposed of by this Court on :9.3.1997 by placing reliance on the decision in case of K.M. Met hew v. Ashok Tanwar, IV (1995) CCR 543=1995 (20) Raj. Cr. Cases 342 , and Magistrate was desired to hear and dispose of objections. The learned Magistrate further as per directions considered all the objections raised by the petitioner but by order dated 6.9.2000 which is impugned, confirmed the earlier order dated 26.2.1993. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Mr. Goenka is not responsible for the defamation. The reason being that he is 'Managing Editor' and did not know as to what was published in Jansatta dated 21.1.1992. It was further stated that Mr. Goenka does not understand Hindi, therefore, he would not be responsible. Briefly, it is stated that he could not have been arrayed as an accused in this case as he had no knowledge, intention or concern whatsoever with the publication of the news. He was simply a Managing Editor and his job was simply to coordinate. It has also been submitted that there are various forms for declarations under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') in which his name is not shown and hence he cannot be responsible for defamation of the respondent Padam Sambhav Jain. It has been further submitted that in the press line of the newspaper, he is simply shown as Managing Editor, hence he cannot be made responsible for the offence. All these arguments have been repelled by the learned Counsel representing the respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. It has been mainly committed that it is for the evidence of Mr. It has been further submitted that in the press line of the newspaper, he is simply shown as Managing Editor, hence he cannot be made responsible for the offence. All these arguments have been repelled by the learned Counsel representing the respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. It has been mainly committed that it is for the evidence of Mr. Goenka that he has been shown as Managing Editor while actually he is 'Editor' and the word used as 'Managing' is superfluous in the press line of the daily newspaper which is extracted in the order impugned itself. 5. It is settled law that an order by which cognizance is taken is exceptionally set aside under Section 482, Cr.P.C. See State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand & Anr., I (1996) CCR 89 (SC)=1996 Crl.L.R. (SC) 61 . Therefore, on the basis of the Mathew's case, the petitioner was directed earlier to raise objection before the learned Magistrate which he did and was unsuccessful. My attention has been drawn to various documents. There is catalogue of newspaper issued by the Government of India relating to the year 1991. It shows Mr. Vivek Goenka of Jansatta at No. 4 is the 'Editor' of the newspaper. It has been urged by the learned Counsel that this document relates to the calendar year 1991 while the offence is said to have been committed-on 21.1.1992 but this document does show the petitioner for the calendar year 1991 as 'Editor'. 6. By earlier order in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 691/96, the learned Magistrate was directed on 19.3.1997 to further record the evidence and then hear the parties. The learned Magistrate did so and recorded the evidence in which the documents were submitted. Therein there is another document dated 30.10.1996 exhibited as Ex. P2 which shows Mr. Vivek Goenka as 'Editor'. It may be stated that some proceedings took place in the Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 416/1998 which is Ex P3 on record. In these proceedings the Ministry of Information vide Ex. P-4 dated 26.11.1998 informed Mr. M.S. Pathak, Advocate that the Editor's name is recorded-in the certificate of registration. The register of newspaper maintained by the Government of India mentions the declaration of 30.6.1995 which shows the name of Mr. Vivek Goenka. But Mr. Vivek Goenka in the Gujarat High Court submitted an affidavit Ex. P-4 dated 26.11.1998 informed Mr. M.S. Pathak, Advocate that the Editor's name is recorded-in the certificate of registration. The register of newspaper maintained by the Government of India mentions the declaration of 30.6.1995 which shows the name of Mr. Vivek Goenka. But Mr. Vivek Goenka in the Gujarat High Court submitted an affidavit Ex. D-2 showing himself to be the Managing Editor of Jansatta on 21.1.1992. Who is an 'Editor' ? 7. My attention goes to the definition of word 'Editor' in Section 1 of the Act which means the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper, the ordinary dictionary meaning of 'Editor' as.Siven in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is as follows : "one who prepares the work of others for publication, broadcasting, etc.; one who conducts a newspaper or periodical, or a section of one (financial editor); head of department of publishing house; one who edits films etc.". 8. The term 'Editor' as defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a Concise Encyclopedia of the Law, Rawle's Revision is held to include not only the person who writes or selects the articles For publication, but he who publishes a paper and puts it in circulation. According to 'Words and Phrases' of West Publishing Co. (Permanent Edition) Vol. 14, Page 123, an Editor of a newspaper is one who superintends the publication of a newspaper. According to 'Halsbury's Laws of England', generally speaking, an Editor is the person who superintends the publication of any literary work (See page 715 - Vol. 37, Fourth Edition). The connotation is wide enough. 9. The word 'Editor' itself in view of above is quite wide and does not limit only to the person who locally looks after the editing work of a newspaper. 10. In the case in hand, the word 'Managing Editor' is wide enough to include the word 'Editor' and here in this case, it appears that the word 'Managing' used before Editor is a superfluous word as the petitioner wanted to escape himself from the liabilities of the cases instituted against him. 11. It has been urged on behalf of Mr. Vivek Goenka that he is not responsible for the article published on 21.1.1992. The complainant in his statement before the Trial Court exhibited all relevant documents which definitely show that Mr. 11. It has been urged on behalf of Mr. Vivek Goenka that he is not responsible for the article published on 21.1.1992. The complainant in his statement before the Trial Court exhibited all relevant documents which definitely show that Mr. Vivek Goenka was of course concerned with the editing work of Jansatta in whatever name he was working. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. R.B. Chowdhary and Others, AIR 1968 SC 110 , and drew my attention to Section 7 of the Act and submitted that though name of M was printed as Editor in copy of paper containing defamatory article was written by him but three more persons however shown as members of Editorial Board along with M. It was held that there would be no presumption tinder Section 7 of the Act that they were also responsible. 13. My attention was drawn to Section 7 of the Act which provides as follows : "7. Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence. In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil or criminal, the production of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of some Court empowered by this Act to have the custody of such declaration, (or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor) shall be held (unless the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, (or printed on such newspaper, as the case may be) that the said person was printer or publisher, or printer and publisher (according as the words of the said declaration may be) of every portion of every (newspaper) whereof the title shall correspond with the title of the (newspaper) mentioned in the declaration, (or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced)." 14. It may be stated that Section 8A of the Act provides that if any person, whose name has appeared as editor on a copy of a newspaper, claims that he was not the editor of the issue on which his name has so appeared, he may, within two weeks of his becoming aware that his name has been so published, appear before a District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate and make a declaration that his name was incorrectly published in that issue as that of the editor thereof, and if the Magistrate after making such inquiry or causing such inquiry to be made as he may consider necessary is satisfied that such declaration is true, he shall certify accordingly, and on that certificate being given the provisions of Section 7 shall not apply to that person in respect of that issue of the newspaper. 15. The Magistrate may extend the period allowed by this section in any case where he is satisfied that such person was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing and making the declaration within that period. 16. I find that Mr. Vivek Goenka did not opt the course given in Section 8A of the Act, therefore, it would not lie in his mouth that he does not come within the definition of Editor as defined in Section 1 of the Act. Therefore, the citation State of Maharashtra v. Dr. R.B. Chowdhary (supra), would not be applicable in this case. Another citation relied by the learned Counsel m case of K.M. Methew v. State of Kerala and Another, I (1992) CCR 316 (SC)= AIR 1992 SC 2206 , wherein it was so held in the circumstances that the accused was named as Chief Editor of the newspaper, there would be no presumption under Section 7 of the Act. 17. In the decision in case of K.M. Mathew v. Ashok Tanwar, IV (1995) CCR 543=RCC 1995 page 342 , K.M. Mathew described himself as Chief Editor for the magazine 'The Week', the article was defamatory. The word 'Chief Editor' was conspicuously absent from the press line of the magazine because only one person was selected having special status as the Editor who can be used or prosecuted and a presumption of Section 7 of the Act can be drawn only against him and none else. The case of Mathew is distinguishable. The word 'Chief Editor' was conspicuously absent from the press line of the magazine because only one person was selected having special status as the Editor who can be used or prosecuted and a presumption of Section 7 of the Act can be drawn only against him and none else. The case of Mathew is distinguishable. Here in this case, the name of petitioner has been shown as Managing Editor in the press line of the newspaper which published the defamatory article on 21.1.1992. The earlier declarations and the later declarations as well as the record show that it was he who was shown as Editor of Jansatta and I think it is for the convenience or in order to escape liabilities he has chosen to be shown as Managing Editor while there is no such word to be used under the Act. In the case of Haji C:H. Mohammed Koya v. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya, AIR 1979 SC 154 , relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it was held that there will be no presumption under Section 7 of the Act against the Chief Editor of newspaper who is not shown to be its Editor. This citation is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because Mr. Vivek Goenka has been shown in different documents as the Editor of Jansatta. There is a judgment of Delhi High Court relied by the petitioner himself in case of S. Nihal Singh and Others v. Arjan Das, 1983 Cr.L.J. 777 , in which it has been held that intention on the part of the accused to harm the reputation or the knowledge or reasonable belief that an imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned as an essential ingredient of off-rice under Section 499. As such the Chairman of a company which owns and publishes a newspaper can be held liable for the publication of the offending news items only if it is shown that he was somehow concerned with the publication of the defamatory news items. He cannot be asked to answer the charge of defamation merely because he happened to be the Chairman of the company owning the newspaper. Here in this case before me, the question of Managing Director of the company or owner of the company or Chairman of the company is not involved. Here the pure and simple question is whether Mr. He cannot be asked to answer the charge of defamation merely because he happened to be the Chairman of the company owning the newspaper. Here in this case before me, the question of Managing Director of the company or owner of the company or Chairman of the company is not involved. Here the pure and simple question is whether Mr. Vivek Goenka comes within the definition of word 'Editor' or not. From the record available and the above discussion, I feel that Mr. Vivek Goenka cannot be absolved as he was the Editor though he may in order to try to shirk his responsibility might have renamed himself either as Managing Editor or as any other Editor. 18. Learned Counsel submitted that there is a form under the Rules which have been promulgated under the Act of 1867. It is Form No. I under the Rules which shows that the name of Editor and his nationality is to be shown under Item No. 9. In this case no such form has been shown in which name of Editor might have been shown as Vivek Goenka. Therefore, presumption cannot be taken against Mr. Goenka under Section 7 of the Act. I do not agree with the argument because it is not From No. I alone which may make or unmake Mr. Goenka responsible because it may so happen that one may not submit this form to the concerned Authorities or if submitted may not show his name as Editor on a particular date when the defamatory article is published. If Mr. Goenka was not responsible for the defamatory article why he did not submit an application under Section 8A of the Act, is a million dollar question in this case. The reply is that he has not done so far the reasons best known to hi-n. There is definite evidence to the effect that he was shown as Editor even before the publication of the new spay, ' ., mered or even thereafter. So he cannot est...: ; the responsibility for the reason that form of ,,carnation regarding the date of publication of the article has not been shown in the Court. 19. There is still another Form No. 11 which is to he filled up at the end of every year. In its Column No. 10, the name of the Editor is to he shown. 19. There is still another Form No. 11 which is to he filled up at the end of every year. In its Column No. 10, the name of the Editor is to he shown. In this case, whether Jansatta submitted this form or not is again a question of fact which has to be seen during the trial by the Magistrate. Section 3 of the Act provides that every book or paper printed within India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing, and the name of publisher and the place of publication. It does not provide that the name of the Editor shall be shown. However, Form No. I and Form No. are the relevant forms under the Rules of 1956 which require that the name of the Editor shall be mentioned. They are not on record at present. It means they were not submitted by the petitioner. 20. In this case, the word 'Managing' appears to he superfluous as it hay no meaning in the context of this case. ever, the word 'Managing' in Law Lexicon, Vol. 2 has been defined and it means administration, control etc. So, if Mr. Goenka is shown as Managing Editor, it means that he controls the Editors and cannot escape his liability. It will be seen during the trial if the liability is not proved against him but prima facie it appears that he is responsible for the offence for which cognizance was taken against him. It is not such an exceptional case that the petitioner may escape the responsibility. The order impugned does not require any interference under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 21. Consequently, there is no force in this petition and it is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******