The main legal point established in the judgment is that individuals declared as editor, publisher, or printer of a newspaper can be presumed to be aware of the contents of a news item, but individuals not covered by the declaration cannot be held vicariously liable for the publication of the news item without specific allegations against them.

1. By this application u/s 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the orders dated 22/06/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in CR Case No. 171/2011, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the petitioners as well as the order dated 16/11/2011, whereby the learned Magistrate refused to recall the process issued against the petitioners and for quashing the criminal proceedings in CR Case No. 171/2011.

2. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. DK Medhi for the respondent.

3. The respondent lodged a complaint before the Magistrate u/s 500 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC against five persons including the present petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused No. 3 and 5. The complainant alleged in a complaint that the Assamese Daily newspaper "Asomiya Pratidin" published a news item titled "Bihalit arakkhir sahajugate bhu-mafiar doratmya" in its issue dated 02-12-2010. It was alleged in the complaint, that such news item lowered the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of his well-wishers, friends, relatives and general people of the area, where he permanently resides. Accused No. 1 is the company which publishes the newspaper, the accused No. 2, 3 and 4 have been arrayed as chief editor, editor and executive editor respectively and accused No. 5 has been arrayed as publisher of the newspaper. On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against all the accused persons named in the complaint.

4. Aggrieved by the order of issuing process, the petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused No. 3 and 5 approached the learned trial court to recall the summons issued against them. However, learned Magistrate rejected the said petition with the observation that once the process was issued, magistrate could not review its own order. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate issuing process and also the order refusing to recall the process, the petitioners have filed the instant petition for setting aside the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and also for quashing the proceeding.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. Kataki submitted that there was no allegation against the present petitioners in the complaint. The accused No. 5 was impleaded only because the newspaper was published by Jatin Choudhury, publisher on behalf of Jayanta Baruah. Accused No. 3 Ajit Kumar Bhuyan was arrayed as editor, though he was not editor of the paper at the relevant time. He was arrayed as an editor, besides impleading the chief editor as well as the executive editor, who were declared as editors of the newspaper. Learned counsel, Mr Kataki, relying on section 7 of the Press and Regulation of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the Press Act) submitted that no presumption of committing offence by the petitioners impleaded as accused No. 3 and 5 could be taken in absence of specific allegation/accusation against them to show that they were either in any way involved in publication of the news item or they had knowledge or connivance in publication of news item. Learned counsel, in support of his submission, also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Jayanta Kumar Baruah Vs. Dilip Barua, reported in 2014 (2) GLT 93.

6. Learned counsel, Mr. DK Medhi for the respondent submitted that learned trial court committed no illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance of offence u/s 500 IPC against the petitioners as they were liable to be prosecuted being publisher and editor of the newspaper.

7. Section 5 (2) of the Press Act provides that the printer and publisher of every newspaper shall appear in person or by agent authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules under section 20,before a District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such newspaper shall be printed or published and shall make and subscribe, in dupl