Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. T. Mishra, learned Addl. P.P. and Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners U/S 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings as against the them pertaining to the CR Case No.2521C/15 pending before the learned SDJM, Sadar-II, (M), Kamrup, Guwahati.

3. The material facts which have laid to making the present petition may be set out as follows:-

The Respondent No.2 is an Educational Institution running under the Gyan Sagar Foundation @ Royal Global School, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1868 and the Respondent No.3 is the President of the said society. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as complainants had filed a complaint for prosecution of the present accused petitioners 1 to 4 portraying them to be the Directors of G. L. Publications and petitioner no.1 has also been projected as Editor to the Newspaper, Purbanchal Prahari and six other persons U/S 500/501 IPC on the allegation of publication of certain defamatory news item in the newspaper Purbanchal Prahari and Amar Asom relating to the inspection made by the School Inspection Committee. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate after examining the complaints issued process against the accused for commission of offence punishable U/S 500 IPC.

4. The petitioners have stated that the Petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director and Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the Directors of publishing House of M/s G.L. Publication of Pvt. Limited who were not were responsible for the publication of alleged defamatory statements in the newspaper Purvanchal Prahari and Amar Asom published from the aforesaid publishing house. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the complaint on account of the fact that they cannot be fastened with any communal liability, much less criminal liability for any alleged defamatory publication in the concerned newspaper because of the statutory bar prevailing under the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867. As per Section 7 of the aforesaid Act, presumption as regards the liability is against the Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper. The act does not recognise any other legal entity for raising the presumption.

5. Perused the content of the petition and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in this case the petitioners have been arrayed in the capacity of Directors of G.L. Publications Ltd. The Directors of a Company owing a newspaper is neither the editor nor the printer nor the publisher of the newspaper, so no presumption can be drawn against the Director, even though he is by reason of the office held by him, in charge of and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business.

8. It was next contended that in view of the provision of section 7 of the Press Registration of Books Act, 1867 presumption can be drawn only against a person whose name is printed as “Editor” in the newspaper of which a copy is produced. But the learned court below committed grave error in taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 501 IPC which is not tenable in law.

9. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 598 Indrajit Lankesh vs. K.T. Dhanu Kumar; (1992) 1 SCC 217 K M Mathew vs. State of Kerala and another.

10. Counsel for the Respondent Nos 2 and 3 has contended that such a contention after one year of filing of complaint is not tenable and they have published the facts. Relying upon the decision of S. Nihal Singh & ors vs. Arjan Das, reported in 1983 CrLJ 777 it has been contended that all accused petitioners are liable for defamation and their liability cannot be denied at this stage but can be challenged only in course