Judgment ( 1 ) INVOKING the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code, this petition has been filed against the order dated 17-1 -2000 passed below ex. 29 by the learned J. M. F. C. whereby the application of the petitioner for discharge has been rejected. ( 2 ) MR. Kasat, learned counsel, contended that the applicant/petitioner has been prosecuted by respondent no. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of indian Penal Code by filing private criminal complaint. He contended that the name of the petitioner has been arrayed as accused no. 2 in the said complaint which would indicate that accused no. 2 Dr. Arun Marathe is the Chief editor of the newspaper Daily Hindustan. He contended that the averments in the complaint only show that accused no. 2 is the Chief Editor and there is no averment in the complaint that whatever news was published in the daily newspaper dated 21-3-1998 was within his knowledge and therefore this applicant ought to have been discharged from the trial. He contended that in absence of positive averments in the complaint and the knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter, the magistrate was not justified in rejecting the application for discharge. In support of these contentions he relied on the decision of the Apex court in K. M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala, (1992)1 SCC 217 . ( 3 ) THE learned A. P. P. contended that the trial is yet to begin and the evidence has not been recorded. He contended that simply because accused no. 2 is named as Chief editor. it did not follow that he is liable to be discharged for the offence punishable under sections 500, 501 and 502 of Indian Penal Code. He contended that accused no. 2 shown in the complaint is Dainik Hindustan which is a legal entity and sought to be prosecuted through its owner, Publisher and Chief Editor Dr. Arun marathe. Therefore, the decision of the apex court in K. M. Mathew's case, cited supra, relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant would not be of any assistance to the applicant. ( 4 ) THIS Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that a private criminal complaint has been filed by respondent no. ( 4 ) THIS Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that a private criminal complaint has been filed by respondent no. 2 against three accused persons in the Court of learned j. M. F. C. for the offence punishable under sections 500, 501 and 502 of Indian Penal Code wherein the name of the applicant has been shown at Sr. No. 2 like this - " DAINIK Hindustan through Chief Editor, dr. Arun Marathe, r/o Khaperde Garden, amravati. " ( 5 ) ON close scrutiny, it would reveal that Dr. Arun Marathe has not been directly impleaded as an accused as the Chief Editor of dainik Hindustan. In fact, Dainik Hindustan has been made an accused who is being prosecuted through Chief Editor. Since the evidence has not been recorded, one does not know who is the editor employed in Dainik Hindustan. Presumption under Section 7 of the Press and registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is available 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 tne selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper'. Section 7 raises the presumption in respect of person who is named as the Editor and printed as such on every copy of the newspaper. The Act does not recognise 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. ( 6 ) THE Apex Court in K. M. Mathew's case, cited supra, observed in para 9 as under: "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' ). 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 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is available 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 as such on every copy of the newspaper. The Act does not recognise 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. " ( 7 ) ON examination of the material placed on record, it would reveal that accused no. 2 Dr. Arun Marathe nowhere in this petition discloses as to who is the Editor of the news which has been published in the newspaper which is not only owned by him but he is publisher and also working as Chief Editor. Therefore, it is not possible to accept that he is not liable to undergo the trial. In such circumstances, though there cannot be any dispute about the ratio laid down by the apex court in the afore mentioned case, the present case is the one in which the said ratio would not be applicable especially when Dr. Arun marathe is the owner and Publisher and consequently Editor of the newspaper Dainik hindustan and is supposed to disclose as to who is the editor responsible for editing the news which has been published in his newspaper. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference into the impugned order passed by the learned J. M. F. C. is warranted. The application is therefore dismissed. Application dismissed.