SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Ker) 517

UMESH C.BANERJEE, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN
Mathew – Appellant
Versus
Abraham – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Leave granted.

2. Common questions of law arise in these appeals; hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Appellants are either Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor of their respective newspaper publications. Separate criminal complaints were filed against the appellants alleging that in their newspaper publications, libellous matter was published and that these appellants had knowledge and they were responsible for such publication and thus they committed the offence of defamation besides other allied offences. In all these cases, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to these appellants. The appellants challenged their prosecution and contended that in view of S.7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), they are not liable to be prosecuted and that the editor of the newspaper whose name is printed on it as the "editor" of that publication alone is liable to be prosecuted for any of the offence for such libellous publication.

3. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1998 is the Chief Editor of "Malayala Manorama", a daily having wide circulation in Ker


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top