The liability of an editor under S.7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 should be determined based on their role in the selection and publication of the material, and each case should be considered on its specific facts.

1. C.C. No. 496 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam was taken to file for an offeree punishable under S.500 read wish S.34 of the Indian Penal Code against two accused on a private complaint filed by the petitioner. First accused is Shri K.M. Mathew, Chief Editor, Malayala Manorama Daily published from Kottayam Second accused is Shri Mammen Varghese, Printer and Publisher of the same paper. First accused filed M P. No. 1896 of 1987 based on a decision of this Court in Mathew v. Nalini (1987 (2) K L.T. 286) requesting that the proceedings against him may be dropped. The prayer was allowed by order dated 5-12-1987 and the Magistrate ordered the complaint to be proceeded against the second accused alone. The correctness and propriety of that order is under challenge by the complainant.

2. Mathew's case (1987 (2) K.L.T. 286) said:

"An editor is liable for the material published by reason of S.7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act,. 1867. Editor is defined on S.1(1) of the Act as the person selecting the material for publication. The definition is not by nomenclature but functional. The Press and Registration of Books Act does not recognise any other legal entity except the editor In so far as the responsibilities of that office are concerned. Therefore, mere mention of the name of the Chief Editor is neither here nor there, nor does it in any way attract the provisions of the Press Act particularly S.7. In the complaint in this case, there is no averment that the Chief Editor was the person who selected the material for publication or that be was in any manner responsible for its publication. There is a vague assertion in Para.16 that the second accused as the Chief Editor and the other accused are chargeable for the offence. The broad assertion is too transparent, to stand scrutiny".

3. That was a proceeding under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint. The complaint was set aside in that case in exercise of the inherent powers only in so far as it relates to the Chief Editor for the reasons mentioned above. It has also been stated in the order that in the complaint there was no averment that the Chief Editor, against whom the complaint was quashed, was the person who selected the material for publication or that he was in any manner responsible for its publication. In the light of those facts, it was held that S.7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 read with definition of editor in S.1(1) thereof cannot implicate the Chief Editor as an offender. That decision cannot be taken as laying down a uniform rule of law that whatever be the allegation in a complaint of defamation against a person, who happens to be the Chief Editor, the complaint cannot proceed against him. If the Chief Editor was made an accused only in that capacity and there is no allegation that he bad anything to do with the selection of the matter for publication or that he was in any other manner responsible for publication, it may not be correct to implicate him as an accused;

4. But in this case, the facts are entirely different and it is admittedly the Magistrate himself in his order. The allegation of the petitioner in the private complaint is that the first accused is having a definite motive and that the publication was purposely made by him in continuation of various other items of previous conduct. In Para.9 of the impugned order the Magistrate said that there were allegations that the first accused was having grudge against the petitioner. But that allegation was overcome by saying that it is not sufficient for a presumption as to the commission of the offence of defamation by him. Para.10 refers to the role of the first accused in publishing the false news item. Finally in Para.12 the Magistrate said that there ate averments by the complainant that the first accused caused the news item in question to be published with the deliberate object of lowering bis r