AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner, who is accused No. 3 in complaint No. 714/2008 dated 25.2.2006 (Annexure P-1) filed under Sections 499/500/506 IPC by respondent No. 2 and the summoning order dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that the petitioner is a Chairman, Publisher and Printer of the Newspaper, namely, Dainik Bhaskar but is not an Editor and under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Press Act’), the Editor is responsible for the control/selection of the matter which was published in the news item which has been alleged to be constituting an offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being the Chairman, Publisher and Printer of newspaper, namely, Dainik Bhaskar, is residing at Bhopal. The newspaper is having various offices in the country and one of its office is situated at Panipat in the State of Haryana.
As per the allegations in the complaint, respondent No. 2-Dal Singh Roherian is a Press Reporter of daily newspaper, Punjab Kesari, for Kaithal. Naresh Bhardwaj, Correspondent/Press Reporter of Dainik Bhaskar has threatened the complainant on telephone for which a case was registered against him with the Police Station City, Kaithal under Sections 419, 170, 506 IPC. Because of the registration of this case, it is alleged that Press Reporter of the Dainik Bhaskar, Kaithal, who is accused No. 1 as well as Sh. Babu Lal Sharma, Editor of Dainik Bhaskar, Newspaper G.T Road, Panipat-accused No. 2 and Ramesh Chand Aggarwal, Publisher and Printer, accused No. 3 had a grudge against the complainant. On the basis of this grudge, accused, with a mala fide intention and to harm the reputation and lower the image of the complainant in the eyes of general public, knowingly and having reasons to believe that such publication would lower the character of complainant and disgrace him published a news item in newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar dated 17.2.2006 by giving photograph of the complainant under the heading “PATTARKAR YA KUCHH OR HAI ROHERIAN”. In this news item, it has been published that S.P Kaithal had mentioned the complainant as Press Reporter but, in fact, he is an illiterate, middle aged person and has police record and there are allegations against the complainant of blackmailing the officials. On this basis, the complainant alleged that the accused have committed an offence under Sections 499, 500/506 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that except for mentioning the petitioner-accused No. 3 as Publisher and Printer of the Newspaper, there is no material on the record suggesting that the petitioner was involved in the selection of the material for publication in the newspaper. That apart, there is no averment in the complaint about the petitioner having knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter which was published in the newspaper. His further contention is that under the Press Act, the responsibility and liability is of the Editor of the newspaper to face civil and criminal proceedings. Section 7 of the Press Act lays down that in any legal proceedings, whatsoever Civil as well as Criminal, the presumption is raised in respect of the Editor as a person who is responsible for selection of the material. Therefore, the present complaint against the petitioner cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haji C.H Mohammad Koya v. T.K.S.M.A Muthukoya, AIR 1979 SC 154 as also the judgment of this Court in the case of H.K Dua v. Chander Mohan, Deputy Chief Minister of Haryana, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 64. He accordingly prays that all consequential proceedings including the summoning order passed against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on the decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chander Aggarwal v. Chandi Ram, (Crl. Misc. No. M-14177 of 2009) decided on 1.4.2010 (Annexure P3) vide which a similar complaint preferred against this very petitioner was quashed by this Court on the ground that the petitioner, being not the Editor of the newspaper, was not liable to be prosecuted and the complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed including the summoning order and the order declaring him a proclaimed offender.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the petitioner being the Chairman, Publisher and Printer of the newspaper cannot be absolved of his responsibility. He contends that the news item was published in the newspaper owned by him which clearly establishes the commission of an offence by the petitioner and on the basis of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial Court. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present petition.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The preamble of the Press Act indicates the object of this Act which is to regulate printing presses and newspapers in order to preserve copies of the newspapers and books. To avoid multiplicity of suits and uncertainties of the liabilities, Legislature considered it to be appropriate and necessary to chose one of the persons and make him liable for all articles and matters published in the newspaper so that any aggrieved person may sue only the so-named person under the provisions of the Press Act. Editor, as per the Press Act, has been named as the person responsible for selecting the articles or matters published in the newspaper. This would obviate the necessity of making a fishing or roving enquiry about persons who may have been individually responsible for the offending matters published in the newspaper.
Editor has been defined in Section 1(1) of the Press Act as a person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Section 5(1) of the Press Act provides that each copy of every newspaper shall contain the names of the owner and Editor thereof printed clearly on such copy and also the date of its publication. This is, however, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 3 of the Press Act. Subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Press Act makes it mandatory for the Printer and Publisher to appear before the Authorities mentioned in that Section and make a declaration to this effect. Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under the Press Act requires the Editor's name along with Printer, Publisher and owner of the newspaper. Section 7 of the Press Act raises a presumption that a person whose name is printed on the copy of the newspaper as an Editor is the editor of every portion of that issue and the declaration form (i) which is in conformity with Rule 8(2) fortifies this presumption. This presumption however is a rebuttable presumption and the so-called Editor can rebut the presumption by showing that he has nothing to do with the publication of the editorial or the news report. Section 7 of the Press Act reads as follows:-
“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, 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.”
As per the above provisions, presumption is primarily against the Editor of the newspaper that he would perform the functions and duties and shoulder the responsibilities of the Editor. However, a person who does not fulfil condition of Section 1 of the Press Act and does not perform the functions of the Editor, whatever may be his description or designation, he would not be liable under the Press Act. Where a person is not shown in the paper to be its editor, no such presumption under Section 7 of the Press Act can be drawn and it must be held that he has no concern with the publication of the article unless it is proved to be contrary in the affirmative like any other fact for bringing any person or making him liable, there needs to be positive assertion against him which would show that such person had knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter and was published with his consent.
On these principles when the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is tested, it does not fulfil the requirement thereof. Firstly, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is not the editor of the newspaper, it is Sh. Babu Lal Sharma, accused No. 2 and the petitioner is only the Chairman, Publisher and Printer of the newspaper. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is residing at Bhopal. Secondly, there are no averments in the complaint (Annexure P-1) that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the said news item was being published or that it was published with his knowledge and consent.
For a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence against a person other than the editor of the newspaper, there must be positive averment in the complaint of the knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter and obviously the consent to publish the same. Even the motive which is attributed to the petitioner is general and vague as it is not even mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner was aware of the registration of an FIR against Sh. Naresh Bhardwaj Correspondent/Press Reporter of the newspaper owned by the petitioner. There is nothing in the complaint to suggest that the petitioner was performing the functions, duties or shouldering the responsibilities of the editor which would bring him within the ambit of Section 7 of the Press Act making him liable for prosecution.
In the light of definition given under the Press Act to the term ‘Editor’ which means a person who controls the selection of the matter to be published in the newspaper and when name of a person is printed on the copy of the newspaper as editor of the same, which contained the defamatory article, he would be liable to be prosecuted as Section 7 of the Press Act raises presumption in respect of such a person.
In the light of the above, not only the presumption cannot be drawn against the others who had not declared themselves as editors of the newspaper but it would also be fair not to hold them responsible because they had no concern with the publication of the article in question. Judgment of the Supreme Court in Haji C.H Mohammad Koya's case (supra) and in H.K Dua's case (supra) supports the case of the petitioner. Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ramesh Chander Aggarwal v. Chandi Ram, (Crl. Misc. No. M-14177 of 2009) decided on 1.4.2010 (Annexure P-3), which is in the case of the petitioner, on the same grounds as in the present petition, covers his case.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No. 714/2008 dated 25.2.2006 (Annexure P-1) filed under Sections 499/500/506 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.