Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2970 (MAD)

M. Karthi v. S. A. Udhayasuriyan

2022-08-26

V.SIVAGNANAM

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No. 134 of 2022 on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Srivilliputhur, and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This criminal original petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 134 of 2022, on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivilliputhur. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the reporter and publisher of the Tamil Magazine namely, Kumudham Reportor. The respondent is the complainant. The petitioners were prosecuted for publishing an article under the heading "TAMIL", on 10.09.2021, in the said Magazine. This article offending the complainant. Hence, he filed a private complaint against the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 501 IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.134 of 2022, which is now under challenge. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.134 of 2022, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivilliputhu, is not maintainable on two grounds. Firstly, the article published under the heading "TAMIL" is not a defamatory article. Secondly, the petitioners are not the editor of the publication. They are reporter and publisher, respectively. In view of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the editor is having the control over the selection of the matter, which has to be published in the magazine. In the book, the name of the editor and publisher are published. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the reporter and the publisher is unsustainable and thus pleaded to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. To support his argument, he relied upon the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Crl.Misc.No.M-30154 of 2010, dated 22.12.2011, in the matter of Ramesh Chand Aggarwal Vs. State of Haryana and another. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are maintainable and conceded that the name of the editor and publisher of the article are declared in the magazine. The petitioners have not disputed the fact that they are the reporter and publisher of the said article. The reporter, being the person, who sent the defamatory matter for publication is liable to be prosecuted. The petitioners have not disputed the fact that they are the reporter and publisher of the said article. The reporter, being the person, who sent the defamatory matter for publication is liable to be prosecuted. The matter published in the article is clearly defamatory in nature. Any article harming the reputation of the complainant, then, the criminal proceedings has to be continued. But, quashing the same is not a proper thing, particularly, with regard to the first petitioner. With regard to the second petitioner, he is the publisher, as per the declaration and in view of Section 7 of the Press and Registration Books Act, 1867, he may be exempted from prosecution. To support his argument, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Dharwad Bench in the case of Selvina Kom Peter Byarko Vs. Ganesh P and Another, reported in ILR 2021 KAR 835. 5. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by both the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the article, dated 10.09.2021 at page Nos. 22 and 23 of the Kumudham Reporter Magazine, under the heading "TAMIL" was published in the said magazine. It is also not disputed that the first petitioner is the reporter for the article published in the aforesaid heading i.e., "TAMIL". According to the complainant, the caption and the contents of the article are not only objectionable but also, defamatory in nature and therefore, the petitioners have to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 IPC. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, runs as follows: 7. According to the complainant, the caption and the contents of the article are not only objectionable but also, defamatory in nature and therefore, the petitioners have to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 IPC. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, runs as follows: 7. Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence.—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 declarations, 1[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 suficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, 1[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 2[newspaper] whereof the title shall correspond with the title of the 2[newspaper] mentioned in the declaration, 5[or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced]. 7. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, enables the Court to draw the presumption that a person, whose name was printed as Editor of such magazine. In this case, the petitioners are not editors. During the course of the argument, this fact is not disputed by the complainant. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners also produced a copy of the declaration in the book published, in which, it is noted that S.K.Murugan and P.Varadarajan are the editor and publisher of the said article. 8. On a perusal of the impugned complaint, it is seen that there is no allegation justifying the second petitioner that he was involved in the selection of the material for publication in the magazine. As per the Press and Registration of Book Act, the person named as editor is alone responsible for selecting the articles or matters published in the magazine. Further, there is no allegation that the second petitioner had knowledge of the objectionable matter published in the magazine, on the above said date. 9. As per the Press and Registration of Book Act, the person named as editor is alone responsible for selecting the articles or matters published in the magazine. Further, there is no allegation that the second petitioner had knowledge of the objectionable matter published in the magazine, on the above said date. 9. The decisions relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners dealt with the case of the defamation complaint filed against the Chairman, Publisher and Printer of the newspaper, namely, Dainik Bhaskar. By considering the section 7 of the said Act, the Court observed that the editor is the responsible person for selecting the articles or matters published in the newspaper and he is also responsible for the offending matters published in the newspaper. 10. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant, two accused persons were prosecuted for publishing defamatory articles in Kadala Koogu weekly magazine. One of the accused was an editor and another accused was a reporter. In that case, the complainant was working as a teacher. The accused persons published an article about the complainant therein and the same was found as defamatory in nature. Hence, the accused persons were convicted. Further, the learned Counsel also contended that apart from the editor, the reporter may also be prosecuted for any defamatory article published in any newspaper or magazine. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the first petitioner being the reporter of the matter, has to face the prosecution. Whether the matter which was published is defamatory in nature and whether the reputation of the complainant was affected are the disputed facts, which have to be determined by the trial Court after letting evidence. 12. The second petitioner has no positive allegation against him. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the second petitioner would amount to misuse of process of Court. Hence the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.134 of 2022, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivilliputhur, is hereby quashed against the second petitioner alone. 13. Accordingly, with regard to the second petitioner, this criminal original petition is allowed. With regard to the first petitioner, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.