The owner of a journal is not automatically liable for defamatory statements published in his journal. The owner must have direct responsibility for the publication and must have the intention to harm or knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned.

( 1 ) THE complainant in a case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the present respondent and one Giani Bichittar Singh filed this appeal with the special leave of the Court under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the respondent in that case The respondent was the owner of a journal in Gurmukhi language named Nabi Probhat while the co-accused in the case Giani Bichittar Singh was the editor, printer and publishei thereof. In two issues of that journal dated October 1 and October 6 1964 respectively the journal published two editorials containing defamatory statements about the complainant which formed the basis of the charge framed against both the accused persons.

( 2 ) THE defence of the present respondent, as it-appears from his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that the editorial was written by the editor and that he had no guilt in the matter. He alleged that he had been impleaded in the case as the result of rivalry between two factions and that he has been the victim of that rivalry over control of the journal. The defence of the co-accused was a plea of justification.

( 3 ) THE learned magistrate found on evidence that the statement was defamatory, that it was published with intent to injure the reputation of the complainant and that the co-accused Bichittar Singh was guilty as editor, printer and publisher for publishing that scurrilous statement. So far as the present respondent is concerned, the learned magistrate found that evidence has not proved that this accused had supplied information or direction to the other accused to publish the editorial or that he gave any directive in the matter of the publication thereof. On this finding, he acquitted the present respondent and it is the propriety of that acquittal which is challenged in this appeal.

( 4 ) MR. Banerjee appearing in support of the appeal refers to the evidence of P. W 2 to the effect that the editorials were published by both the accused and that both the accused were responsible for the comments therein and urged that this evidence in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned was not challenged in cross-examination. His further argument is that the respondent as the owner of the paper was responsible for the editorial policy thereof and that he was nowhere disassociated himself from the impugned publication. According to Mr Banerjee. the owner could not in the circumstances escape his liability under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in this connection Mr. Banerjee also refers to an unreported decision in another case between the present appellant and the pre-sent respondent (Criminal Revn. Case No. 964 of 1966, D/- 19-9-1987 (Cal)) wherein the order of discharge of the respondent by the learned magistrate in that case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside and the case has been sent back for further enquiry with the observation that -"it is difficult to say that the proprietor and the member of the Advisory Committee (the present respondent) had no control over the paper or did not shape its policy and it is difficult to agree with the learned Judge's view that in spite of being the proprietor and a member of the Advisory Committee he had no opportunity of influencing the publication of the defamatory matter"

( 5 ) THE question before us is the extent of the liability of the owner for defamatory statements published in the paper owned by him. Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the person responsible for defamation is the person who"by words either spoken or intended to be read x x x makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will hurt the reputation if such person"the owner in order to be liable under this section has to have direct responsibility for the publication of the defamatory statement and he must al