Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1092 (KAR)

Vithal v. Gudusab

2019-06-04

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.51/2012, on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Badami, registered against him for the offence punishable under section 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). 2. The brief facts of the case are that a person by name Sri. Gudusab S/o. Modinsab Gadadalli lodged a complaint before J.M.F.C. Badami, making this petitioner as accused No.3 alleging that all the accused, including the present petitioner, have printed and published a defamatory statement against the complainant in Kannada daily newspaper, "Vijay Karnataka", which is circulated throughout Karnataka. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3. The counsel for respondent-complainant remained absent. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.3 that the petitioner-accused No.3 is no way connected with printing and publishing of any article in the newspaper. In the absence of any specific allegations as against petitioner-accused No.3, no criminal prosecution can be continued. It is his contention that the records disclose the fact that the petitioner-accused No.3 is only a reporter and he collected material and placed before the editor of the newspaper and no overt acts have been stated as against the petitioner-accused No.3. It is further submitted that as per Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, it is the editor of the newspaper, who is liable to civil and criminal proceedings. But apart from the editor, petitioner-accused No.3, who is a reporter, has been included as an accused in the case and the Court below has taken cognizance of the offence against him and issued notice. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner accused No.3 has placed his reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and another, (2013) 3 SCC 697 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.3 that section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 has been interpreted and it is the editor who controls the selection of the matter that is going to be published in newspaper and there is rebutable presumption and unless the contrary is proved, the said fact has to be accepted. He further relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Mathew v. K. A. Abraham and others, (2002) 6 SCC 670 and submitted that the provisions contained in the said Act goes to show that there should be presumption against the editor whose name is presented in the newspaper to the effect that he is editor of such publication and he is responsible for selecting the matter for publication. Under such circumstances, the reporter is not having any role to play and he has been arrayed as accused. The same is liable to be quashed and cognizance taken in this behalf is also shows that it is an abuse of process of law. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and quash the proceedings. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 that this Court has already covered the said decision in Criminal Petition No.10920/2013 and proceedings as against the petitioner-accused therein has been quashed. Under the said facts and circumstances, the petition requires to be allowed and proceedings as against petitioner-accused No.3 has to be quashed. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.3 and perused the records. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on close reading of the entire complaint averments show that there is no special or specific allegation as against petitioner-accused No.3, who is a reporter. The complaint discloses that the petitioner-accused No.3 is the reporter and he has collected news. Even the complaint does not disclose the name of the petitioner-accused No.3 and it is stated in the complaint that "the report of the said newspaper". It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.3 that as per Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, it is the editor of the newspaper, who is responsible to criminal as well as civil proceedings and said section is rebuttable presumption. For clarification, I would like to quote the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gambhirsinh (stated supra). At para No.18, which reads as under: "18. Therefore, from the scheme of the Act it is evident that it is the Editor who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. For clarification, I would like to quote the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gambhirsinh (stated supra). At para No.18, which reads as under: "18. Therefore, from the scheme of the Act it is evident that it is the Editor who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Further, every copy of the newspaper is required to contain the names of the owner and the Editor and once the name of the Editor is shown, he shall be held responsible in any civil and criminal proceeding. Further, in view of the interpretation clause, the presumption would be that he was the person who controlled the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper. However, we hasten to add that this presumption under Section 7 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption and it would be deemed a sufficient evidence unless the contrary is proved. The view which we have taken finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, in which it has been held as follows: "20. The provisions contained in the Act clearly go to show that there could be a presumption against the Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper to the effect that he is the Editor of such publication and that he is responsible for selecting the matter for publication. Though, a similar presumption cannot be drawn against the Chief Editor, Resident Editor or Managing Editor, nevertheless, the complainant can still allege and prove that they had knowledge and they were responsible for the publication of the defamatory news item. Even the presumption under Section 7 is a rebuttable presumption and the same could be proved otherwise. That by itself indicates that somebody other than editor can also be held responsible for selecting the matter for publication in a newspaper." 8. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. M. Mathew (stated supra), at para No. 20 has observed as under: "20. The provisions contained in the Act clearly go to show that there could be a presumption against the Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper to the effect that he is the Editor of such publication and that he is responsible for selecting the matter for publication. The provisions contained in the Act clearly go to show that there could be a presumption against the Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper to the effect that he is the Editor of such publication and that he is responsible for selecting the matter for publication. Though, a similar presumption cannot be drawn against the Chief Editor, Resident Editor or Managing Editor, nevertheless, the complainant can still allege and prove that they had knowledge and they were responsible for the publication of the defamatory news item. Even the presumption under Section 7 is a rebuttable presumption and the same could be proved otherwise. That by itself indicates that somebody other than Editor can also be held responsible for selecting the matter for publication in a newspaper." 9. I have carefully perused the above judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the above decisions, it is observed that every copy of the newspaper is required to contain the names of proprietor and editor and once the name of the editor is shown, he shall be held responsible to civil and criminal proceedings. The presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act alone makes it clear that there should be special or specific allegations as against the reporter. Unless specific allegations are made out or specific role has been assigned, then under such circumstances, taking of cognizance of the offences, as against reporter, by the Trial Court survive for consideration. But no such allegations are available on records. By keeping the said facts in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as this matter has already been covered by the order of the coordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.10820/2013 dated 26.03.2014, the proceedings as against petitioner accused No.3 needs to be quashed as there are no changed circumstances to differ from the said decision. In the light of the discussion held by me above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner-accused No.3 has made out substantial grounds to quash the proceedings and accordingly, the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. 10. Consequently, orders passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami in C.C.No.51/2012 dated 10.02.2012 in taking cognizance and issuing process as against petitioner-accused No.3, for the offences punishable under sections 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC, is hereby quashed.