JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, the Code, the petitioners pray for setting aside of the order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barpeta in C.R. Case No. 4632/2010 taking cognizance of offence under sections 500/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners and the proceeding in C.R. Case No. 4632/2010.

2. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party.

3. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

4. The opposite party had filed the complaint case, amongst other, against the petitioner No. 1 as accused No. 1 being the proprietor of an Assamese daily newspaper, “Asomiya Pratidin” and the petitioner No. 2, represented by the petitioner No. 1, as accused No. 5, being the press, from which the issue dated 01.10.2010 of the said newspaper “Asomiya Pratidin” containing a defamatory article under the heading “Pub Bajali Zilla Parishodor unnayon dhowa-changot –- Pratibadot Xorob Raij – NREGAt durnity : Jobcardprapto shramikor hahakar” was published. The Chief Editor, Executive Editor, Printer and Publisher and the Local Correspondent of Asomiya Pratidin were the accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6, respectively.

5. In the complaint petition, the complainant states that he belongs to a prominent and highly reputed family in Assam. During his School days, he was a student leader and later on, was associated with Asom Gana Parishad, a regional political party. He was associated with various reputed socio-cultural organizations and at the time of filing of the complaint was the Vice President of Barpeta Zilla Parishad. He has enjoyed good reputation and good-will because of his integrity, honesty and uprightness.

6. The complaint petition was filed as the publication as referred to hereinbefore imputed that he had misappropriated several lakhs of rupees from NREGA without doing any work. According to the complainant, the article, in its entirety, and every allegation and imputation made therein and the aspersions cast are false, malicious, extremely scurrilous and highly defamatory and such allegations have been made with reckless disregard to the truth and without making any, let alone reasonable, verification of the correct facts.

7. For the purpose of this case, having regard to the issues raised, it is not considered necessary to reproduce the alleged defamatory statements made in the article in question.

8. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are no allegations against the petitioners in the complaint petition and they have been named as accused only because the petitioner No. 1 happens to be the proprietor of the newspaper and because the petitioner No. 2, represented by the petitioner No. 1, had printed the issue dated 02.10.2010 of the newspaper in question. Learned counsel submits that no presumption against the proprietor or the press can be drawn when there is defamatory imputation in newspaper or journal and in this connection, he has relied on section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, for short, the Act. It is submitted that when the Chief Editor, Executive Editor and the Printer and Publisher, against whom presumption can be drawn, are named as accused persons, taking of cognizance against the present petitioners in absence of any averments in the complaint petition about their knowledge or any role in the publication of the said news item, is not sustainable in law and the impugned proceedings cannot stand against the petitioners. He has placed reliance on three judgments of the Apex Court reported in (i) (2008) 5 SCC 668 (Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat), (ii) (2010) 10 SCC 479 (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd.) and (iii) (1998)5 SCC 749 (Pepsi Food Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Spe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document