The presumption of knowledge of the contents of a defamatory news item under S. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, can only be drawn against the Editor, Printer, and Publisher named in the declaration filed under the Act, and not against others.

RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under S. 482 Criminal P. C. to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 144/85 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the 1st accused in C. C. No. 144/85 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On a private complaint filed against him and two others under Ss. 500 and 501 of the IPC the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate and summonses were issued to all the three accused, including the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tarakaprabhu Publishers Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as the "company". The primary object of the company as set out in the memorandum of objects and Articles of Association of the Company is to establish, maintain and run a printing press or presses for printing and publishing newspapers, journals, periodicals and magazines etc. The Company publishes a Telugu Daily viz. , UDAYAM. The second accused is the Editor while the third accused is the printer, publisher of the daily. The third accused also is the Managing Director of the Company.

( 4 ) IT is complained by the 1st respondent that some articles were published in the daily on 15-6-1985 and on 22-6-1985 exposing the activities of the management of the Trinity Public School, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad of which he is the Secretary, that the Publications are per se defamatory and that the same were made with the intention of damaging and lowering his reputation and members of his family as also the school run by them.

( 5 ) IT is urged by Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the allegations levelled or complained against, even if taken at their face value, do not implicate the petitioner in any way, that no offence punishable, either under S. 500 or S. 501 of the Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, that the petitioner has nothing to do with the actual publication of the daily, that the Editor, Printer and Publisher implicated as accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the case are alone answerable for the impugned publications and that in order to prevent abuse of presses of the court the proceedings launched against the petitioner should be quashed.

( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner is neither the Printer nor the Publisher nor the Editor of the daily as evidenced by the declaration lodged under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 hereinafter referred to as the "act", on 20-9-1984. In the declaration, Sri K. Ramakrishna Prasad is noted as the Publisher of the daily. While furnishing the said information he is also described as the Managing Director of the Company. He is also described as the Printer of the daily. Sri A. B. K. Prasad is described as the Editor of the daily. In fact it is so recited in the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent the presumption of knowledge of awareness of the contents of the daily available under S. 7 of the Act can only be drawn against the Printer or the Publisher or the Editor of the daily. The presumption cannot the pressed into service even against the owner of the daily.

( 7 ) IN Bhagat Singh v. Lachan Singh, AIR 1968 Cal 296 : (1968 Cri LJ 759) adverting to the liability of the owner of a newspaper for publication of a defamatory statement in the newspaper, it is observed :-"the owner in order to be liable under S. 499 of the Code has to have direct responsibility for the publication of the defamatory statement and he must also have the intention to harm or knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned. The owner of a journal qua owner has thus no responsibility under the section. The editor of the paper, even though he might not be directly responsible for a defamatory statement published in his paper attract the responsibility by virtue of S. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act by virtue of his registration as edi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document