Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 645 (AP)

GIRISH SANGHI v. State Of A. P.

2002-06-04

S.R.K.PRASAD

body2002
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC No. 299 of 1997 on the file of the V Additional District munsif, Chittoor, invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 cr. PC in respect of a complaint launched for the offence under Section 500 IPC which has been taken cognizance of by the magistrate under Section 500 IPC and ordered process. Unfortunately the publications which constitute defamation are not placed before the Court. In the absence of the same the defamatory nature and contents cannot be judged by traversing through the allegations made in the complaint. The petitioner s Counsel mainly contends that there are no allegations made against the Editor-in-Chief attributing knowledge of the publication made in vartha Daily Newspapers. He has mainly placed reliance on the decision reported in km. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1) scc 217 , case. Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the trial has already begun and it is not a case where the inherent powers can be exercised. He has drawn my attention to paragraph 29 of the complaint and contends that there is prima-facie material which constitutes an offence under Section 500 IPC. It is observed in the decision reported in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, case, 2002 3 SCC 89 , that where the factual matters clearly show commission of offence the Court should not exercise power under Section 482 to quash the proceedings at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charges. ( 2 ) IT is observed by the Supreme Court in KM. Mathew s case (supra) at paragraphs 9 and 10 as follows:-"9. In the instant case there is no averment against the Chief Editor except the motive attributed to him. Even the motive alleged is general and vague. The complainant seems to rely upon the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books act, 1867 ( the Act ). But Section 7 of the act has no applicability for a person who is simply named as chief Editor . The presumption under Section 7 is only against the person whose name is printed as editor as required under Section 5 (1 ). But Section 7 of the act has no applicability for a person who is simply named as chief Editor . The presumption under Section 7 is only against the person whose name is printed as editor as required under Section 5 (1 ). There is a mandatory (though rebuttable) presumption that the person whose name is printed as editor is the Editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced. Section 1 (1) of the Act defines editor to mean the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper . Section 7 raises the presumption in respect of a person who is named as the Editor and printed on such as every copy of the newspaper. The Act does not recognize any other legal entity for raising the presumption. Even if the name of the Chief Editor is printed in the newspaper, there is no presumption against him under section 7 of the Act. 10. It is important to state that for a magistrate to take cognizance of the offence as against the Chief Editor, there must be positive averments in the complaint of knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter. The complaint in the instant case does not contain any such allegation. In the absence of such allegation, the Magistrate was justified in directing that the complaint so far as it relates to the Chief Editor Would not be proceeded with. To ask the Chief editor to undergo the trial of the case merely on the ground of the issue of process would be oppressive. No person should be tried without a prima facie case. The view taken by the High Court is untenable. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the high Court is set aside. "it is clearly stated by the Supreme Court that under Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, a presumption arises in respect of a person who is named as Editor and printer on every copy of the newspaper. It is also observed by the Supreme Court that even if the name of the Chief Editor is printed in the Newspaper, there is no presumption against him under Section 7 of the Act. It is also observed by the Supreme Court that even if the name of the Chief Editor is printed in the Newspaper, there is no presumption against him under Section 7 of the Act. What is required to be mentioned in the complaint is the positive averments attributing knowledge and motive that an objectionable matter is printed and it is to be seen whether such things are mentioned in the complaint or whether the same have been spoken to at the time of sworn statement? Unfortunately a copy of the sworn statement is not placed before the court. In the absence of copy of the sworn statement, it is very difficult to decide about the attribution of knowledge about the objectionable matter that is printed. In any view of the matter they have to be left to the trial. In this case no witness has been examined. Non-bailable warrants are said to have been issued and the petitioners are said to be absconding from attending to the court. The stay obtained is said to have been vacated in September, 1998. Normally this Court will not interfere, exercising inherent powers in cases where the trial has commenced, unless it is shown that there is illegality on the very face of it and the complaint is barred by law. ( 3 ) I have perused paragraph No. 29. It is only a mechanical repetition of the words and does not clearly state or attribute knowledge to the Chief Editor. It is also clearly stated by the Supreme Court that to ask the Chief Editor to undergo trial in the Courts merely on the ground of issue of process will be oppressive. The material placed before the Court, including the averments in the complaint do not attribute clear knowledge to the then Editor-in-Chief working in the Vartha newspaper. In the absence of the same, the proceedings against a2 the Chief Editor in-charge is liable to be quashed and so far as others are concerned, the material is sufficient to constitute offence under Section 500 IPC. To sum up, I find that the issue of process and the charge- sheet is liable to be quashed insofar as A2 who is the 2nd petitioner herein is concerned and insofar as the 1 st petitioner and other accused are concerned, the trial shall go on. To sum up, I find that the issue of process and the charge- sheet is liable to be quashed insofar as A2 who is the 2nd petitioner herein is concerned and insofar as the 1 st petitioner and other accused are concerned, the trial shall go on. ( 4 ) IN the result the charge-sheet and the issue of process insofar as the 2nd petitioner herein is quashed while dismissing the criminal petition in respect of others.