The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption of responsibility for publication under the Press Act applies only to the person declared as the editor, not the Chief Editor.

1. The petitioner, who is an Editor -in-chief of all publications of the Tribune Trust was knocked at the door of this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint dated 25-7-2007 (Annexure P-3) filed under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code and order dated 4-8-2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, whereby petitioner was summoned for the aforementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code to face criminal trial.

2. The three newspapers are published by the Tribune Trust Daily English NewspaperThe Tribune, The Dainik Tribune in Hindi and the Punjabi Tribune in English. The petitioner, being the Editor-in-chief appointed by the Trust, is the Editor-in-Chief of each and every publication of the Trust. The Dainik Tribune, which is a Daily Hindi newspaper has a separate Editorial Department, which is distinct from the Editorial Department of the other two newspapers of the Trust, viz., the Punjabi Tribune and the Tribune. It is further pleaded that the printing and publication of the newspapers is inter alia governed by the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as "the Press Act"). As per the said Act, certain particulars must be published and printed on each copy of each newspaper. The contents of such statutory and mandatory insertion is collectively known in the trade as the Imprint Line of a newspaper. As per the statutory Imprint Line, the name of the petitioner has been stated to be that as the Chief Editor. The other name, which is mentioned in the Imprint Line as per the Mandatory requirements, is that of the Editor, the Printer and the Publisher of the newspaper Dainik Tribune, which is disclosed as Mr. Naresh Kaushal, who has been separately arrayed as accused No. 3 in the complaint sought to be quashed. The role of the petitioner qua the Dainik Tribune is only restricted to formulation of the Editorial Policy and nothing further. So far as controlling the selection of the matter, which is to be published in the newspaper is concerned, it is the responsibility of Mr. Naresh Kaushal, which has been defined clearly in the Statutory Imprint Line, inasmuch as against the name of Mr. Naresh Kaushal, an astrix has been placed with the explanation that it is that person, who is responsible for the selection of the matter as per the provisions contained in the Press Act. As per Section 1 of the Press Act, the Editor has been defined as the person who is responsible for controlling the selection of the matter to be published in a newspaper. The three statutorily recognised functionaries of a newspaper are the Editor, the Printer and the Publisher thereof. In the Dainik Tribune dated 23-7-2007, Chandigarh, Edition, a news item was published under the headline "There will be action against persons doing cross-voting including Chander Mohan".

3. Being aggrieved by the publication of the said news item, the respondent filed a criminal complaint under Sections 500/501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and complainant thereafter examined himself as CW 1 along with other witnesses and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 4-8-2007, summoned the accused persons as arrayed in the complaint.

4. At the outset, it may be stated that in the complaint there is no averment at all that the petitioner controlled the selection of the matter that was published on 23-7-2000 in the "Dainik Tribune". He was impleaded as an accused No. 2 simply on the ground of his being an Editor-in-Chief of the "Dainik Tribune". Meaning thereby that the present petitioner was thus being prosecuted for publication of defamatory news item merely he being the Editor-in-chief of the paper mentioned above in which news item was published.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the averments contained in the