Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
PRABHASH JOSHI - Appellant
Versus
DHARAM SINGH - Respondent
Cr. Misc. (M.) Petition No. 700 of 1991
Decided On : 12/24/1993
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - DEFAMATION - SECTION 500 IPC - CHIEF EDITOR - LIABILITY - SECTION 7 OF THE PRESS AND REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT (25 OF 1867) - INTERPRETATION - CONSPIRACY - SECTION 120-B IPC - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - PROOF REQUIRED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Editor-in-Chief and Resident Editor of a newspaper, were summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for allegedly defaming the complainant under sections 500 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners challenged the summoning order, arguing that the complaint was baseless, mala fide, and an abuse of the process of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not contain any material to justify the issuance of process against the petitioners. The court also held that the petitioners, as Editor-in-Chief and Resident Editor, were not directly responsible for the publication of the alleged defamatory article and could not be held liable under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (25 of 1867). Further, the court found that there were no positive averments in the complaint to support the allegation of conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint against the petitioners was baseless, mala fide, and an abuse of the process of the court? 2. Whether the petitioners, as Editor-in-Chief and Resident Editor, were directly responsible for the publication of the alleged defamatory article and could be held liable under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (25 of 1867)? 3. Whether there were positive averments in the complaint to support the allegation of conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complaint did not contain any material to justify the issuance of process against the petitioners. The court also held that the petitioners, as Editor-in-Chief and Resident Editor, were not directly responsible for the publication of the alleged defamatory article and could not be held liable under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (25 of 1867). Further, the court found that there were no positive averments in the complaint to support the allegation of conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in C. H. Muhammad Koya v. Muthu Koya and K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another to hold that the mere mention of the name of the Chief Editor is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Press Act, particularly section 7. The court also held that the presumption under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act is only against the person whose name is printed as Editor and not against the Chief Editor.
Final Decision: The court quashed the summoning order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and set aside the further proceedings in the case.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Petitioners namely Prabhash Joshi and Om Thanvi have preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of "Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the order dated June 27, 1991 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur in case No. 44-1/91, summoning the petitioners and also for quashing the proceedings initiated against them on the basis of private complaint made by respondent Dharam Singh, Ex-Revenue Minister, under section 500 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Editor-in-Chief of Newspaper Hindi Daily Jansatta Delhi Office. Petitioner No. 2 is the Resident Editor of Chandigarh edition of the Newspaper The petitioners submit that during the last Parliamentary election large number of prominent persons joined different parties including the Bhartiya Janta Party. One Shri Dharam Singh belonging to Mewa Constituency alongwith some other persons also resigned from Congress Party and joined the Bhartiya Janta Party. Copy of the statement made by Dharam Siogfa on 21-5-1991. to this effect is annexed as Annexure P-i. The news about Dharam Singhs joining Bhartiya Janta Party was published in various News Papers namely, Jansatta’ Indian Express, Dainik Tribune’ and the English Tribune on different dates, copies whereof are attached as Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively. It is alleged by the petitioners that Chaudhary Dharam Singh was annoyed with Rakesh Rokki, the Jansatta Correspondent and had been trying to exert pressure on him so as to force him to submit reports in his favour and in favour of his party i e. Congress (I) Annoyed with the independent and objective reporting of Rakesh Rokky, the complainant-respondent had been threatening the local correspondent and also misbehaved with him as a result of which the Local Journalists had strongly protested against the misbehaviour of trie respondent and the matter was reported in Newspaper including Punjab Kesri on 26-4-1991. The respondent in order to further harass the Jansatta Correspondent picked up the news item published in Jansatta9 on 23-4-1991 (Annexure P-2) and initiated criminal proceedings against the correspondent as well as against this petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners have been singled out though the same news items were published by various other Newspapers and thus, the action of the respondent in initiating the case against the petitioners is mala fide and with The intention to put up due pressure on Newspapers and the Correspondents in order to gain some political advantage by compelling them to publish only those news items which are favourable to the respondent.
3. On the basis of the complaint, the trial Court examined the complainant and the witnesses and issued process against petitioners No i and 2 only for the commission of offence punishable under section 500 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code The petitioners hive assailed the impugned order in this petition.
4. Petition was admitted by this Court on 21-I0-199L and further proceedings in the case pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur were stayed The respondent was duly served but remained absent.
5. Shri R. C. Bakshi learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations in the complaint are baseless, false and frivolous. There is no material on the record of the case to justify the issuance of process against the petitioners. The complaint made by the respondent against the petitioners is not only against the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act (25 of 1867) but also biased since it has been made in order to harass and humiliate the petitioners. He contended that the complaint contains no allegation against petitioner No 1. The Editor-in-Chief is not at all involved in the actual editing, reporting, printing or publishing or selection of materials for publication of news items in the l
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
