Judgment

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY,J :- We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the matter.

2. This appeal against a decision of the Kerala High Court raises an important question concerning the power of the Magistrate to drop proceedings against an accused in a summons-case after process is issued.

3. The facts are simple. K. M. Mathew - appellant is the Chief Editor of Malayala Manorama. It is a daily newspaper with wide circulation in the State of Kerala and seems to be the largest language newspaper in India. Separate editions of the newspaper are published from different centres, namely, Trivandrum, Kottayam, Cochin and Calicut. At each of these centres, there is a separate Editor who is responsible for selection and publication of news items. The Chief Editor is based at Kottayam and he is responsible for the general policy of the Daily and various other publications of the Manorama group of publications. Respondent No. 2 is an advocate. He was aggrieved by a news item published in the Daily. His case was that the news item was published with the sole object of ridiculing and defaming him. He lodged a complaint before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate against the Chief Editor, the Printer and Publisher of the newspaper alleging that they have committed an offence punishable under Ss. 500 & 34, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant on oath and took the complaint on file as CC 496/85. He issued summons to the accused. The accused upon service entered appearance and pleaded not guilty.

4. Before the evidence was recorded, the Chief Editor requested the Magistrate to drop the proceedings against him. He contended that the complainant has not alleged that the Chief Editor was responsible for selection of the news item and publication thereof. There was not even an averment in the complaint that the Chief Editor has perused the material or edited before its publication or that it was published with his knowledge or consent. After hearing the parties the Magistrate accepted the plea of the Chief Editor and dropped the proceedings against him. To be more precise, the Magistrate directed that the complaint so far as it relates to the Chief Editor could not be proceeded with.

5. The complainant took up the matter to the High Court in revision. The High Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate.

6. The High Court did not examine whether the complainant has or has not made out a case against the Chief Editor. The High Court rested its conclusion solely on the procedural requirements of the trial of a summons-case. It has been pointed out that in any private complaint triable as a summons-case the Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process, has no jurisdiction to drop proceedings against the accused. He is bound to proceed under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure-when the accused enters appearance. He will have to state the particulars of the offence and record the plea of the accused. When the accused pleads not guilty, he will have to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence produced in support of the prosecution. Then he will have to hear the accused and take all such evidence produced in support of the defence. The High Court went on to state that the question of conviction or acquittal will arise only after recording evidence of the parties. There is no question of discharging the accused at an intermediate stage. There is no provision in the Code for dropping the proceedings against any accused. So stating, the High Court has directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial of all the accused.

7. The High Court seems to be too technical in this regard. If one reads carefully the provisions relating to trial of summons-cases, the power to drop proceedings against the accused cannot be denied to the Magistrate. Section 204 of the Code indicates that the proceedings before the Magistrate commences upon taking cognizance of the offence