Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 63 (MP)

Brij Maheshwari v. Arun Jain

2005-01-11

S.L.KOCHAR

body2005
ORDER S.L. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid Petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings against her pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Indore in Criminal Case No. 423/2004. 2. The non-applicant No. 1 Arun Jain has filed criminal complaint under section 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code against five persons named Karan Singh Panwar, Prafulla Maheshwari, the editor of daily newspaper Navbharat; Indore; Mr. Satyabhushan Sharma, Printer and Publisher of daily newspaper Navbharat, Indore, M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd., Navbharat Press and City Reporter Mr. Tej Kumar, daily newspaper Navbharat, Indore; alleging that Non-applicant Karan Singh Panwar gave a false news to daily newspaper Navbharat; Indore and got it published in the newspaper in the edition dated 28th July, 2001 under the heading and caption that: Under this heading and caption, false news has been published just to defame and degrade the non-applicant/complaint intentionally in the eye of the public, his relations and colleagues. 3. In the original complaint applicant Brij Maheshwari was not arrayed as one of the accused. The complainant examined himself and his witnesses under sections 200 and 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate and thereafter, learned Magistrate issued process against accused Karan Singh Panwar under section 500, Indian Penal Code and against other co-accused persons under section 501(b), Indian Penal Code. 4. On 16-4-2004, non-applicant No. 1/complainant filed an application for issuance of process against applicant in place of accused No. 4 M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd. Navbharat Press. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class directed the complainant to produce some documentary evidence regarding ownership of the applicant or her relations with the newspaper and fixed the case for 2-7-2004. On 2-7-2004, Non-applicant No. 1 produced Annual Report of the Company showing that the petitioner was the Director of the Company. On the basis of this, learned trial Court passed the order for the presence of the petitioner on 5-8-2004 This order was challenged in revision and the revision was partly allowed. The applicant was directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 7-10-2004 and furnish regular bail. On failure of appearance, trial Court was directed to take necessary further legal action against the applicant. 5. The applicant was directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 7-10-2004 and furnish regular bail. On failure of appearance, trial Court was directed to take necessary further legal action against the applicant. 5. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even if complete allegations mentioned in the complaint and in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 201, Criminal Procedure Code are taking into consideration, no case is made out for issuance of process against the petitioner or M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd., Navbharat Press because the said Company has leased out Printing and Publishing Work to accused Prafulla Maheshwari, the editor of daily newspaper Navbharat; Indore. He has also submitted that the applicant and M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd., Navbharat Press have nothing to do with the Printing and Publication of the said Newspaper and the news published therein. Learned Counsel has submitted that according to the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short, "the Act") and the declaration in Form 1, the responsibility lies only on the editor, Printers and Publishers vis-a-vis persons who supplied the news and for this purpose there is declaration printed in the newspaper dated 28th July, 2001 at page 12 that owner of the paper is M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd. but the press was leased out to lessee Navbharat (Bhopal) and its Printers and Publishers is Mr. Satyabhushan Sharma, Firoz Gandhi Press Complex, Indore, and its editor is Prafulla Maheshweari. Because of this specific declaration, it is crystal clear that as per Provisions under section 7 of the Act, M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd., and its Director Smt. Brij Maheshwari (applicant herein) is not at all connected directly or indirectly because the Company has already leased out the press to Navbharat Press whose Printers and Publisher is Satya Bhushan Sharma whereas Prafulla Maheshwari is the editor. They all are arrayed as non-applicant/accused in the complaint along with the City Reporter Mr. Tej Kumar, and Karan Singh Panwar who supplied the news to daily newspaper Navbharat; Indore. Learned Counsel has placed reliance in support of his contentions on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. They all are arrayed as non-applicant/accused in the complaint along with the City Reporter Mr. Tej Kumar, and Karan Singh Panwar who supplied the news to daily newspaper Navbharat; Indore. Learned Counsel has placed reliance in support of his contentions on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. R. B. Choudhari and ors., 1968 MRU (SC) 111 : AIR 1968 SC 110 and Judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of S. Nihal Singh and ors. vs. Shri Arjandas, 1983 (I) Crimes 438 . 6. As against this, Learned Counsel appearing for Non-applicant No. 1 has submitted that since the applicant Smt. Brij Maheshwari is the Director and owner of M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd., Nav Bharat Press, being owner she is also responsible for publication of offending news in daily Newspaper Navbharat Indore. 7. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the provisions of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd., Nav Bharat Press, through its Director Smt. Brij Maheshwari, cannot be held responsible for printing and publishing the news in the daily newspaper Navbharat dated 28-7-2001. Section 3 of the Act provides that every book or paper shall have to be printed legibly on it the name of the Printer and the place of printing and if book or paper is published the name of the publisher and the place of publication. Section 5 of the Act requires that every printer and publisher of newspaper shall make a statutory declaration before the Competent Magistrate in the prescribed form. Further, the names of owner and the editor have to be printed clearly on each copy. Section 6 contains the provision for authentication of a declaration made under section 5. Section 5 of the Act requires that every printer and publisher of newspaper shall make a statutory declaration before the Competent Magistrate in the prescribed form. Further, the names of owner and the editor have to be printed clearly on each copy. Section 6 contains the provision for authentication of a declaration made under section 5. Lastly section 7 of the Act lays down as under: Section 7 : In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil as 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.) 8. The above mentioned Provisions of the Act disclose that Printers or the Publishers as the case may be, who has made a declaration under the Act and the Editor whose name appeared on the copy of the newspaper, shall be presumed to be aware of what is being printed and published in the issue of the newspaper. The declaration is prima facie evidence of the publication by the editor of the news item in the newspaper. He will not be absolved for the publication of objectionable matter by saying that in the daily routine he had asked sub-editor etc. to select the news item who controls selection of the matter that is published in the newspaper. In the instant case, declaration printed on the left side on the top of the page 12 of the newspaper shows that newspaper had been printed and published by Publisher Satya Bhushan Sharma and its editor is Prafulla Maheshwari. to select the news item who controls selection of the matter that is published in the newspaper. In the instant case, declaration printed on the left side on the top of the page 12 of the newspaper shows that newspaper had been printed and published by Publisher Satya Bhushan Sharma and its editor is Prafulla Maheshwari. The name of M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd., Nav Bharat Press, is mentioned as owner but at the same time it has also been mentioned that M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd., has leased out to Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.) and for lessee Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.) Satya Bhushan Sharma was discharging his duties as Printer and Publishers at Firoz Gandhi Complex Indore and its editor was Prafulla Maheshwari. In view of this specific declaration that M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd. has leased out to Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.), M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Smt. Brij Maheshwari, cannot be held responsible for the matter published in the daily newspaper on 28th July, 2001. 9. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled in the case of State of Maharashtra (Supra) the aforementioned legal position and the same is legal position has also been considered by Delhi High Court in the case of S. Nehal Singh (Supra). 10. In view of the above mentioned facts and legal position of the case on hand, prima facie, no case is made out to proceed against Smt. Brij Maheshwari, (applicant herein) for the aforesaid offence. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. Proceedings pending before the Court below against M/s Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd. through its director are hereby quashed.