Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002(4) Crimes 17 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
Umesh C. Banerjee and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
K.M. Mathew —Appellant
versus
K.A. Abraham & Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1998
With
Criminal Appeal No. 849 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 399 of 2001)
And
Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 520 of 2001)
Decided on 23-8-2002

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties :F.S. Nariman, S.K. Dholakia, L. Nageswara Rao, Vijay Bahuguna, Sr. Advocates, E.M.S. Anam, Fazlin Anam, N.B. Joshi, Rajshekhar Rao, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sanjeev Sen, D.N. Ray, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Malini Poduval, C. Jayaraj, M.K.D. Namboodiri, A.P. Mayee, Mrs. Rucha Mayee, Nilesh A. Pandya, Advocate for C.K. Sasi, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Advocate (NP), Javed Mahmud Rao, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Arjun Bobde, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Subhash Sharma, Ms. Lansinglu Rongmei, Ranji Thomas, Advocates.

Important Point
Managing editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor of a newspaper can be prosecuted for defamation if they had knowledge of the publication of the alleged defamatory matter and they were responsible for such publication.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 500—Offence of defamation—Complaint against Chief Editor of “Malayalam Manorma”, Managing Editor of “Indian Express” and Resident Editor of “Hindustan”—Appellants challenged their prosecution u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.—Pleading protection u/s. 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867—Dismissed by High Court—Appeals to Supreme Court—Contention of the appellants that only Editor whose name is printed in such publications alone can be prosecuted—Whether tenable? (No)—Result—Appeals dismissed—Case law discussed.
       Held : The contention of these appellants is not tenable. There is no statutory immunity against Managing Editor, Resident Editor or Chief Editor against any prosecution for the alleged publication of any matter in the newspaper over which these persons exercise control. In all these cases, the complainants have specifically alleged that these appellants had knowledge of the publication of the alleged defamatory matter and they were responsible for such publication; and the Magistrates who had taken cognizance of the offence held that there was prima facie case against these appellants. It was under such circumstances that the summonses were issued against these appellants. (Para 16)
       The provisions contained in the Act clearly go to show that there could be a presumption against the Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper to the effect that he is the Editor of such publication and that he is responsible for selecting the matter for publication. Though, a similar presumption cannot be drawn against the Chief Editor, Resident Editor or Managing Editor, nevertheless, the complainant can still allege and prove that they had knowledge and they were responsible for the publication of the defamatory news item. Even the presumption under Section 7 is a rebuttable presumption and the same could be proved otherwise. That by itself indicates that somebody other than Editor can also be held responsible for selecting the matter for publication in a newspaper. (Para 20)
       In the instant appeals, the complainant in each case has alleged that these appellants who are either Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor had knowledge and were responsible for publishing defamatory matter in their respective newspaper publications. Moreover, in none of these cases, the ‘Editor’ had come forward and pleaded guilty to the effect that he was the person responsible for selecting the alleged defamatory matter published. It is a matter of evidence in each case. If the complaint is allowed to proceed only against the ‘Editor’ whose name is printed in the newspaper against whom there is a statutory presumption under Section 7 of the Act, and in case such ‘Editor’ succeeds in proving that he was not the ‘Editor’ having control over the selection of the alleged libellous matter published in the newspaper, the complainant would be left without any remedy to redress his grievance against the real culprit. We are not unmindful of the powers of the Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but such powers are circumscribed by limitations. We do not find any convincing reasons to quash the proceedings initiated against these appellants and the Criminal Appeals are devoid of merits. They are dismissed and the proceedings initiated against the appellants be continued in accordance with law. (Paras 23 & 24)

Judgment

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.—Leave granted.

2. Common questions of law arise in these appeals; hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Appellants are either Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor of their respective newspaper publications. Separate criminal complaints were filed against the appellants alleging that in their newspaper publications, libellous matter was published and that these appellants had knowledge and they were responsible for such publication and thus they committed the offence of defamation besides other allied offences. In all these cases, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to these appellants. The appellants challenged their prosecution and contended that in view of Section 7 of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), they are not liable to be prosecuted and that the Editor of the newspaper whose name is printed on it as the “Editor” of that publication alone is liable to be prosecuted for any of the offence for such libellous publication.

3. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1998 is the Chief Editor of “Malayalam Manorma”, a daily having wide circulation in Kerala and other places. According to the appellant in this case, he is the Chief Editor of the “Malayalam Manorma” and that there is also an Editor for this publication who alone can be charged for the offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code in view of the statutory presumption under Section 7 of the Act.

4. In Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 399 of 2001, the appellant is the Managing Editor of Indian Express, Jansatta and Financial Express and certain other publications. A criminal complaint was filed against the appellant and others alleging that on 21st January, 1992 a news item was published in “Jansatta” which, according to the complainant, was defamatory and thus the appellant had committed the offence under Section 500 IPC. The complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Kota in Rajasthan.

5. The appellant in the Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 520 of 2000 was the Resident Editor of a daily, namely, “Hindustan”, and the complainant therein alleged that some articles published on 7.12.1986 and 8.12.1986 in that newspaper (“Hindustan”) were defamatory and thereby the appellant committed offence under Section 500 IPC.

6. In all these cases, the respective Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint and issued process to the appellants and the appellants filed petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are not liable to be prosecuted for the offence of defamation for the alleged libellous publication as they are not the Editors of such publications. The plea raised by the appellants was not accepted by the High Courts and the impugned orders passed in those proceedings are challenged before us.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the respondents. As noticed earlier, the contention of the appellants is that in view of Section 7 of the Act, there cannot be any prime facie case against the appellants and the Editor whose name is printed in such publications alone can be prosecuted.

8. Section 7 of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 reads as follows:

“7. Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence.-In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil as criminal, the production of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of some Court empowered by this Act to have the custody of such declarations, or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor shall be held (unless the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, or printed on such newspaper, as the case may be, that the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Important PointManaging editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor of a newspaper can be prosecuted for defamation if they had knowledge of the publication of the alleged defamatory matter and they were re­sponsible for such publication.

Cases Referred (3)

Important Point
Managing editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor of a newspaper can be prosecuted for defamation if they had knowledge of the publication of the alleged defamatory matter and they were responsible for such publication.