Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1285 (DEL)

JOY BROTO ROY v. STATE OF DELHI

2006-08-02

A.K.SIKRI

body2006
A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) RASHTRIYA Sahara', a Hindi newspaper (Delhi edition) published an article concerning respondent No. 2 herein/complainant underthe caption "iran Say Uphaar Mein Mili Pustakein Bech Di Professor Nay. " according to the complainant, in the said article there were false and malicious allegations against the complainant which constituted offence of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 500, IPC. The complainant, therefore, filed complaint under Sections 499-502, IPC against five persons, namely, the correspondent, the Editor, the Printer, the publisher (accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5) as well as Managing Editor of the said newspaper as accused No. 2. Summoning order dated 22. 7. 2000 has been passed against all the accused persons. The petitioner (accused No. 2) has filed this petition for quashing of the said summoning order. The limited ground taken is that "as a Managing Editor he is not concerned and responsible for the said publication and, therefore, cannot be arraigned as accused person. " ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner is the Managing Editor of the said newspaper as the complainant himself described him so in the complaint. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 draws certain presumptions against certain persons, including the 'editor'. The word 'managing Editor' is not included in the said section and, therefore, no such presumption can be drawn against the Managing Editor. This aspect stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. M. Mathew v. State of kerala and Anr. , I (1992) CCR 316 (SC)=jt 1991 (4) S. C. 464, wherein the Court held as under: "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 reply 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 isonly 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 isonly 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 [see State of Maharashtra v. Dr. R. B. Chowdhary and Ors. , 1967 (3) SCR 708 ; D. P. Mishra v. Kamal Narain Sharma and Ors, 1971 (3) SCR 257 ; Narasing Charam Mohanty v. Surendra Mohanty, 1974 (2) SCR 39 ; and Haji CM Mohammad Koya v. T. K. S. M. A. Muthukoya, 1979 (1) SCR 664]. " "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 could 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. " ( 3 ) PERUSAL ofthe complaint would otherwise show that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint. 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. " ( 3 ) PERUSAL ofthe complaint would otherwise show that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint. In fact, the petitioner's application for discharge was dismissed by the learned MM only on the ground that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1967 defines Editor as "the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in the newspaper" and treated the petitioner as covered under the said definition. As pointed out above, so far as this ground is concerned, the aforesaid observations of the learned Trial court are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr. (supra ). This petition accordingly succeeds. The summoning order issued against the petitioner (accused No. 2) are quashed and the complaint against the petitioner is dismissed. ( 4 ) THE petition is disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith. Petition disposed of.