2022 Supreme(AP) 1132

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Y. S. Bharathi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 3780 of 2015 and 5093 of 2015
Decided On : 10-08-2022

Except the Editor, no other person is liable for prosecution prima facie.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PETITIONS - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 499 AND 500 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - PUBLICATION OF FALSE NEWS IN SAKSHI NEWSPAPER - PETITIONERS ARRAYED AS A.1 AND A.4 - PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT - ALLEGATIONS - PUBLICATION OF FALSE NEWS ITEMS - DEFAMATORY AND MALICIOUS - INTENTION TO TARNISH IMAGE AND REPUTATION OF 2ND RESPONDENT - COGNIZANCE TAKEN BY LEARNED MAGISTRATE - ORDER READ - CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS - LEARNED COUNSEL FOR 2ND RESPONDENT - COURT PERUSED ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPER AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC - EXERCISE - CONDITIONS - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - ISSUES - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION - MAIN LEGAL POINT.

Fact of the Case:

A private complaint has been filed by 2nd respondent/complainant against the petitioners herein and others before the learned Magistrate. The allegations, in brief, in the said private complaint may be stated as follows: (a) 2nd respondent/complainant is a reputed politician in Andhra Pradesh and he was elected to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly several times from Narsipatnam constituency in Visakhapatnam district. He is also a Member of Lok Sabha once from Anakapalli constituency in Visakhapatnam district. YSR Congress Party leaders requested him to join in their party, but he refused the same, and ever since, all the accused bore grudge against him and published false news in Sakshi news paper several times. (b) Petitioner/A.1 is the Managing Director of M/s. Jagathi Publications Limited and also wife of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, who is President of YSR Congress Party. A.2 is Editor, A.3 is Bureau Chief and the petitioner/A.4 is Editorial Director respectively of the news paper. All the accused conspired together to defame 2nd respondent/ complainant and published false news against him. (c) On 8/3/2013, the accused are alleged to have published a false news item in first page of Sakshi news paper, Visakhapatnam local edition, by mentioning [XXXXXXX], which, on the face of itself, is offensive, obnoxious and smacks of the underlying malice and mischief intended by all the accused so as to tarnish the image and reputation of 2nd respondent / complainant and other MLAs of Telugu Desam Party and cause embarrassment for them among the public. The entire news item was based on mere conjectures and surmises and in utter disregard to the standards of norms and ethics and abuse of freedom of speech and expression. It is further alleged that the said news item does not carry a fair report of facts and it rather carries a mal-intention on all the accused to mud-sling on 2nd respondent/ complainant. (d) The accused published false allegations like [XXXXXXXX] and also commenting that the local people expressed that 2nd respondent/complainant demanded some vacant place from land grabbers and trying to collude with the land grabbers, which is absolutely baseless and there is no iota of truth. (e) From the date of publication of the above news item in the news paper, 2nd respondent/complainant had to face embarrassing situation. Whenever he was going to public places such as party meetings, etc., he had to hear disparaging remarks from the passers-by. The news item was designedly and calculatedly published with the underlying mischief of harassing him, which all the accused succeeded by damaging his reputation and image by publishing the wrong and false news item, which facts are far from truth. The news item caused immeasurable mental as well as physical agonies to him and lowered down his reputation amongst the acquaintances, friends, general public and before the other leaders. L.Ws.2 to 5- K.Tata Rao, A.Appala Naidu, L.Somi Naidu and G.Chandu, who witnessed and readers of the news paper got astonished, telephoned to him and informed about the false news against him, and to draw attention of maximum readers, the accused repeatedly published false allegations against him to create a suspicion on his character. (f) The cumulative direct effect of the said acts of publication of news by distortion of facts, as mentioned above, individually as well as jointly by all the accused, was to ruin his reputation and obliterate all the accused. The entire publication with the statements of A.2 to A.4 with false comment is highly defamatory, libelous and directly amid at him to tarnish his image in public. He was deeply hurt and perturbed by the malicious news published in the news paper and suffered much mental agony and loss of prestige.

Finding of the Court:

Going by the provisions of the PRB Act, 1867, it would clearly go to show that there can be a presumption as against the Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper to the effect that he is the Editor of such publication and is responsible for selection of the matter for publication. A similar presumption cannot be drawn as against the Chief Editor, Managing Director or Resident Editor. Though the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.M. Mathew vs. K.A. Abraham (AIR 2002 SC 2989) supports the case of 2nd respondent, in view of the later judgment in Jacob Mathew vs. Adangam Purath Kallada Gangadharan Nair's case, except the Editor, no other person is liable for prosecution prima facie. (see Order dtd. 5/1/2018 of the common High Court in Criminal Petition No.11861 of 2017 in V.Radhakrishna & others vs. Alla Rama Krishna Reddy & others). My learned brother has dealt with the subject comprehensively by referring to, all other judgments.

Issues: Whether the petitioners can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec. 500 or 501 IPC?

Ratio Decidendi: The term "editor' is defined in the Act to mean a person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Where there is mentioned an editor as a person who is responsible for selection of the material Sec. 7 raises presumption in respect of such a person. The name of that person has to be printed on the copy of the newspaper. In the present case, the names of petitioners admittedly were not printed as the Editor of the newspaper which contained the alleged defamatory article. In the circumstances, not only the presumption cannot be drawn against the others who had not declared themselves as Editors of the newspaper but it is also fair to leave them out because they had no concern with the publishing of the article in question. Where a person is not shown in the paper to be its Editor, no such presumption under Sec. 7 of the PRB Act, 1867 can be drawn but it must be held that he has no concern with the publishing of the article.

Final Decision: Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.770 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam are quashed insofar as petitioners/A.1 and A.4 are concerned. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petitions, shall stand closed.