The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Chief Editor cannot be held liable for defamation without prima facie evidence that he selected the defamatory material for publication.

1. This matter comes up on remand.

2. Petitioner, one of the accused in C.C.147/86 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kozhikode, moved this court under S.482 of the code, to quash a complaint for defamation against him, on the allegation that an article defamatory to the complainant appeared in the paper. Petitioner is the Chief Editor of a newspaper.

3. The complaint was quashed, as there was no averment that the Chief Editor was the person who selected the material for publication. The decisions in C.H. Mohammed Koya v. Muthu Koya (AIR. 1979 SC. 154), State of Maharashtra v. Choudhury (AIR 1968 SC. 110) and D.P. Mishra v. K Sharma (AIR. 1971 SC. 856) were relied on to hold that the Chief Editor could not be held liable.

4. Complainant-respondent took up the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court, in Crl. A. 282/88. The Supreme Court set aside the order and remitted the matter observing:

"The High Court shall direct the respondent to formulate the ground in the form of an affidavit and allow appellant herein to file an affidavit in rejoinder and thereafter bear the parties on the question as to the maintainability of the complaint against the respondent herein".

5. Accordingly, petitioner was directed to file an affidavit and the respondent a rejoinder. In petitioner's affidavit dated 24-6-88, it was stated that, He is the Chief Editor of Malayala Manorama published from four centres, that even according to the respondent the news item appeared only in the Calicut Edition, that other centres did not carry the news, that Malayala Manorama has separate News Editors for Kottayam, Cochin. Trivandrum and Calicut, that Chief Editor has no personal control or supervision over each of the local news published from the four centres, that local news items are edited and published by Editors at local centres, that office of the Chief Editor is at Kottayam, that petitioner bad no control or supervision in selection of material, that be is only controlling the general policy of newspaper, that he had no opportunity to see the new item before it was published, and that there is no averment in the complaint that he was the person who selected the material for publication or that be was in any way personally responsible for its publication.

In the rejoinder affidavit, complainant-respondent submitted that.

Copy of the Malayala Manorama daily in which defamatory news item is published the name of the Chief Editor K. M. Mathew only is shown, that if there is an editor, the name of the editor ought to have been shown in the copy of the paper published, that the statement that the Malayala Manorama has separate News Editors for particular centres is not acceptable, and that

"I need not specifically mention in the complaint that he is the person who selected that material for publication".

6. Counsel for petitioner submitted that the newspaper in question is the largest selling daily to the country with four editions, and that the petitioner who resides at Kottayam about 300 Kms. from the place of publication is not responsible for the article and that he bad nothing to do with its publication. Counsel submitted that there must at least be an allegation, that petitioner was responsible for selecting the material or that be had the necessary intention or knowledge, to make him liable. In para 16 of the complaint, all that is stated is:

"As the Chief Editor are chargeable for the offence":

7. Even in the rejoinder, complainant has no case the petitioner selected the materia, or that be was at least aware of the contents of the report. Para 5 reads:

"I need not specifically mention in the complaint, that he is the person who selected the material for publication".

During the bearing, I asked the respondent who appeared in person, whether she had a case that petitioner was aware of the publication or was in any way connected with it. The answer was:

"I need not answer it; The Complaint is as per provisions of law".

I have