JUDGMENT :

Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 11/04/2017, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/s. 500 IPC against the petitioners and the subsequent orders issuing warrant of arrest and also for quashing the entire proceedings in CR Case No. 204/2016 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bajali.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Mahajan and learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. I.H. Laskar for the respondent were heard.

3. The respondent lodged a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bajali against the petitioners and two others u/s. 500 Cr.P.C. alleging therein, that a defamatory news item was published in the Assamese Daily "Axomiya Kabar" in its issue dated 28/08/2016, under the heading "durghotanak loi Baksar saudarbhitha khudra prathamik saista kendrat uttopta paristhiti". The complainant alleged that the aforesaid news item was false, defamatory and the same has hampered reputation of the complainant/respondent. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against all the accused persons named in the complaint including the present petitioners.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process, the petitioners have preferred the instant application praying for quashing the proceeding basically on the ground, that the complaint did not disclose any offence against the petitioners, inasmuch, there was no specific allegation against the petitioners in the complaint, nor in the statement of complainant and the witnesses recorded u/s. 200/202 Cr.P.C.

5. During pendency of this criminal petition, the petitioner No. 2, Rantu Das died and therefore, only the petitioner No. 1, Sailendra Konwar Dutta, Managing Director, is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.K. Mahajan would submit, that the petitioner, Sailendra Konwar Dutta, was the Managing Director of the newspaper concerned and as such he could not be held vicariously liable for the offence committed by the editor, publisher etc. Mr. Mahajan further contends that there was no positive averment or any specific allegation attributed to the petitioner to show that the petitioner had any role in publication of the alleged news item. Even the complainant and the witnesses examined at the time of taking cognizance did not take any specific allegation against the present petitioner to rope in with the commission of offence alleged in the complaint. Mr. Mahajan also contends, that even if there may be rebuttable presumption against the editor, printer, publisher etc. of the newspapers for publication of any objectionable news item in view of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short Press Act), the managing director, who apparently had no role in selecting or choosing the news for publication, no presumption u/s. 7 of the Press Act is available against the managing director. However, learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner without applying judicial mind and as such, the impugned orders as well as the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner deserves to be quashed. In support of his submission, Mr. Mahajan placed reliance on the following authorities:-

1. (1992) 1 SCC 217 (K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.)

2. (2002) 6 SCC 670 (K.M. Mathew Vs. K.A. Abraham & Ors.)

3. 2014 (2) GLT 93 (Jayanta Baruah and Anr. Vs. Dilip Baruah)

4. 2017 (2) GLT 354 (Shri Ghisalal Agarwalla & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.)

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. I.H. Laskar would submit, that the managing director or the owner of the newspaper is also liable for the offence u/s. 500 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the High Court should not interfere with the criminal proceedings u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., where the allega