Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 668 (KAR)

G. M. R. ARADHYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2004-12-02

H.G.RAMESH

body2004
H. G. RAMESH, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has sought for quashing the order passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings Nos. MAG (1) CR 122 of 2002 and MAG (1) cr 136 of 2002, dated 21-11-2002. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader and also respondents 4 and 5. None represents respondent 2. ( 3 ) IT is stated that the petitioner is a Journalist holding a Diploma in journalism and publishing a Kannada daily by name 'jana Miditha' from Davangere. By initiating proceedings against him in No. MAG (1) cr 122 of 2002, the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order for violation of Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and thereby convicting him and to pay Rs. 2,000/- fine and also to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and has also prohibited publication of the said paper by him. The same has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that the entire proceedings initiated by the Magistrate and the order passed against the petitioner is unsustainable as the District Magistrate is not vested with the power to initiate proceedings against the petitioner as per the amended provision that is introduced by Mysore Act 13 of 1965 from the schedule to Section 66 which came into effect from 1-10-1965 wherein the word 'magistrate' refers to only Judicial Magistrate thereby excluding the magistrate Powers entrusted to the police Magistrate or others. ( 5 ) IT appears, on the ground that the petitioner has published certain articles in newspaper alleging illegalities said to have been committed by the District Magistrate; that he had not filed returns during 2002; that the petitioner had failed to mention the name of the editor, publisher, etc. , proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner citing violation of the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act. ( 6 ) ALTHOUGH there are prima facie allegations against the petitioner, it would be subject-matter of enquiry by the Judicial Magistrate. But, the District Magistrate is shown to have exercised power and acted as such even though he is not vested with such powers and the order so passed is not only irregular but also illegal. ( 6 ) ALTHOUGH there are prima facie allegations against the petitioner, it would be subject-matter of enquiry by the Judicial Magistrate. But, the District Magistrate is shown to have exercised power and acted as such even though he is not vested with such powers and the order so passed is not only irregular but also illegal. By virtue of the definition of the words 'judicial Magistrate' by Amendment Act 13 of 1965, the district Magistrate is shown to be lacking power to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. In view of the same, the proceedings initiated against this petitioner and the consequential order passed by the district Magistrate/deputy Commissioner, Davangere in convicting and sentencing the accused has to be set aside. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Nos. MAG (1) CR 122 of 2002 and MAG (1) CR 136 of 2002, dated 21-11-2002 is quashed. Petition is allowed. --- *** --- .