The main legal point established is that the Chief Editor can be held responsible under the Press Act, and the place of publication for jurisdiction includes where the defamatory matter was circulated and read.

Petition is to quash the proceedings in S.T. No. 1341/93 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chengannur, including Annexure-A1 complaint.

2. The respondent had preferred a complaint dated May, 1992 against the petitioners alleging that by publishing the news item the petitioners have committed the offence of defamation punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The complaint related to a news item published in the newspaper dated 14-2-1992 wherein, according to the complaint, publication under the caption "Fraud in Gulf", "complaint against a Malayalee," appeared as a news item. According to him, the publication had seriously infringed the reputation of the complainant and lowered his moral and intettectual character, causing considerable mental pain and agony to him and his family. When complainant caused a notice calling upon the petitioners to make an unconditional apology, petitioners have expressed their inability to do so holding that the news item was published in the interest of the public. As against the complaint, petitioners have earlier moved the High Court in Criminal M.C. No. 2345 of 1993 under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. to quash it. This Court by order dated 13-12-1994 quashed the proceedings on the ground that the alleged imputation were not incorporated in the complaint and, therefore, the complaint was defective. On a Special Leave in Criminal Appeal No. 1726/96, dated 25-9-1996 the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that the news item is per se defamatory, and, therefore, there is no need of incorporating selected pieces therefrom in the complaint separately and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint. Thereafter the present Criminal M.C. is filed to quash the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two points : (i) Annexure A1 complaint is not maintainable against the Chief Editor and, therefore, the Court below acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the complaint against him, and (ii) the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chengannur has no territorial jurisdiction since the paper was printed and published at Kottayam.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the earlier round of litigation though these points were raised the learned Judge found it unnecessary to consider the above questions in the light of the finding that the complaint was liable to be quashed on the third ground viz. absence of the relevant portion of the defamatory statement. Therefore, according to him, these questions are still left open. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner, namely, the Chief Editor, is in no way responsible for the selection of the materials and its publication and that there is no specific averment of an overt act on his part in the complaint.

5. The relevant portion dealing with the Chief Editor in the complaint is as follows :

"As the Chief Editor he is in overall control of the publication and he has active participation thereof."

xx xx xx xx xx

"This news item was transmitted to Kottayam office of by the 4th accused, as the correspondent and it was published with the knowledge and connivance of the Chief Editor".

In the lawyer's notice dated 6-4-1992 calling upon the petitioners for an unconditional apology it is stated as follows :

"The first among you is the Chief Editor of Malayalam Manorama daily and is in overall charge of the Printing and Publishing of the same"

xx xx xx xx xx

"As Chief Editor, Editor, Printer and Publisher and correspondent, all of you are jointly and severally liable for the publication of the news being per se defamatory ..........."

In the reply to the said lawyer's notice dated 22-4-1992 it is stated :

"That the publication had been made after due enquiry and had been made based on reliable information received by our clients."

6. Thus from the records it is seen both in the legal notice as well as in the reply a specific imputation