The presumption of editorship under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 can only be raised against the person whose name is printed on the newspaper as the Editor, and not against the Editorial Board members.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J. :- This is an appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay discharging the respondents in a criminal case in which they were made accused with one Sudhakar Gopal Madane.

2. The matter arises in this way. The Public Prosecutor, West Khandesh, Dhulia with the previous sanction of the State Government filed a complaint against four persons who are members of the Editorial Board of a Maharathi Weekly named "Maharashtra", under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was that in an issue of the Maharashtra dated October 30, 1959, they had published an article which tended to defame one M. A. Deshmukh I. A. S., Collector and District Magistrate, West Khandesh in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. We need not go into the facts of that article or the gravamen of the charge of defamation. This Weekly Maharashtra is registered as a newspaper and a declaration in Form I under Article 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 has been filed by Sudhakar Gopal Madane who has described himself in the declaration as the editor, printer & publisher of the newspaper. The particular copy of the Maharashtra in which the alleged defamatory article appeared bore the name of Madane as the editor, printer and publisher of the newspaper. It also showed on the front page the Editorial Board consisting of the three respondents and Madane the Editor. The short question which has arisen in the present matter is whether the Members of the Editorial Board other than the Editor can be prosecuted for the defamatory article.

3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Dhulia, who is trying the case, held by an order dated October 26, 1963, that the respondents 2, 3 and 4 could be charged with the Editor because they were Members of the Editorial Board. He held that there was no evidence so far adduced by the prosecution to establish that they were the Editors, Printers and Publishers of the Weekly yet in view of the admissions of the respondents that they were Members of the Editorial Board there was a prima facie case proved against them that they were makers of the impugned article. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further said that the prosecution would have to lead satisfactory and cogent evidence to prove and establish that respondents 2, 3 and 4 were Editors, Printers and Publishers. The present respondents 2, 3 and 4 thereupon filed an application for revision before the High Court and the impugned order came to be made on their application. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the statement of the editor Madane made under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly showed in unequivocal terms that the alleged defamatory article had been written by him. The newspaper according to the learned Single Judge also showed at the bottom of the last page the name of Madane as the Editor. Since there was no other cogent evidence against the present respondents, the learned Single Judge held that there was no good ground for framing a charge against the present respondents and they ought to be discharged. He made an order in that behalf.

4. The State of Maharashtra which appeals by Special leave, contends that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was wrong in treating the statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Madane accused No. 1 as evidence in the case tending to exonerate the present respondents. The State also urges in addition that a presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 can be raised against the Editorial Board and they can therefore be held responsible for the defamatory article. We shall deal with these two questions.

5. The first argument is correct. No doubt under the Code of Criminal Procedure the statement of an accused may be taken into consideration in an inquiry or trial but it is not strictly evidence in the case. An accused, when he makes his statement under S