The court emphasized the rebuttable presumption against the Editor and the responsibility of persons other than the Editor for selecting the defamatory matter for publication in a newspaper.

Anuja Prabhudessai, J.

1. By this application filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Applicant, who is the original accused No. 1, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of issuance of process in Criminal Case No. 217 of 1997 for offence punishable under section 500 of the IPC.

2. The Applicant, is the Chairman and the Managing Director of Indian Express Newspaper (Mumbai) Ltd. The company is the proprietor of various newspapers and magazines including the multi edition English newspaper "The Indian Express" and multi edition Marathi daily "Loksatta". On 3.10.2000 the Applicant received summons to appear before the J.M.F.C. Court No. 4, Pune on 5.10.2000 to answer the charge under section 500 of the IPC in Criminal Case No. 217 of 1997 filed by the Respondent No. 1/complainant against the present Applicant and others in respect of the news item published in the Indian Express, Pune edition issue of 19.5.1997 under the heading "Tea vendor takes on ST bosses." The Respondent No. 1 alleged that the said news report was defamatory. The Respondent No. 1 alleged that by publishing the said news report the Applicant and the other accused lowered his image in the eyes of public and had thereby committed offence under section 500 r/w. 34 of the IPC.

3. Mr. Chitnis, the learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant being the Chairman and Managing Director was not responsible for the day to day reporting of news in any of the editions of the Indian Express. Placing reliance on the provision of section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the learned counsel submits that the person, whose name is printed as the Resident Editor/Editor is responsible for publication of news and presumption has to be drawn that the Editor or Resident editor, whose name is specifically printed is the person solely responsible. He therefore, claims that the Applicant herein, who is the Managing Director cannot be held responsible and cannot be tried for offence under section 500 of the IPC. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this Court in Vivek Goenka v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cri.L.J. 2194.

4. Mr. Anuturkar, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the facts in Vivek Goenka, supra are distinguishable. He has further submitted that in the said case (accused Nos. 2 to 4) the editor, whose name was printed had accepted their responsibility on oath and hence, the presumption under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 has to be drawn against them. Consequently, it was held that no case was made out against the Applicant Vivek Goenka to face trial for offence under section 500 of the IPC.

5. The learned senior counsel Shri Anturkar has further submitted that in the present case no such affidavit is filed and hence the principles laid down in the said case are not applicable. He has further submitted that the complaint contains specific allegations against the Applicant and hence this is not a fit case for quashing the process issued against the Applicant.

6. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the Applicant and the learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and the learned APP for the Respondent-State.

7. At the outset it may be mentioned that the present complaint relates to the news report published in the Indian Express dated 19.5.1997 under the heading "Tea Vendor takes on ST bosses." Said news report was also published in "Loksatta" Marathi daily dated 28th August, 1997, Pune edition of the same company viz. Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. The Applicant herein is the Managing Director of the said company. The complainant had filed two separate complaints against the Applicant and the Editor, Printer, Publisher, etc. of the respective dailies for offence under section 500 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The Applicant herein had challenged the order of issuance of proces