Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 22806
BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT NAGPUR
G. A. SANAP, J
Shriram Jaisingh Pawar – Appellant
Versus
Sayyad Mujiboddin Sayyad Habiboddin – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1251 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R. R. Vyas, Mr. Sumedh Kadam
For the Respondents: Mr. H. D. Dubey, A. P. P.
A Chief Editor cannot be criminally prosecuted for defamatory content without clear evidence of knowledge or responsibility regarding the published matter.
Headnote:(A) Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 - Section 7 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Issuance of process against Chief Editor of a newspaper for defamation - Complaint does not attribute specific knowledge or role to the Chief Editor regarding the publication - The law as established in K.M. Mathew case indicates that without details of personal involvement, a Chief Editor cannot be indicted under Section 7 of the Act. (Paras 8, 12, 13)
(B) Legal principles - The Editor, being defined under Section 1 of the Act, controls published content; mere designation as Chief Editor does not impute liability without evidence of knowledge of the matter published. (Paras 11, 12)
(C) Findings - The court found the issuance of process against the applicant unjustified, settling the precedent regarding the necessary burden of proof for prosecuting individuals not explicitly named as liable under relevant laws. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, Chief Editor of Sakal newspaper, challenged the issuance of process based on a complaint alleging defamation due to an erroneous news report.
Issues: The main issue is whether a Chief Editor can be criminally held liable for published content without an explicit allegation of knowledge or responsibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that liability requires specific knowledge or responsibility, following substantial legal precedents; hence, without such, the proceedings cannot continue against the applicant.
Result: The application is allowed, and pending criminal proceedings against the applicant are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of defamation through a published news article. (Para 4) |
| 2. chief editor's liability requires explicit knowledge of the published content. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. interpretation of the press act concerning editor's responsibilities. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal precedents dictate liability standards for newspaper editors. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. the court quashes the process against the chief editor due to lack of evidence. (Para 14) |
| 6. conclusion of the legal proceeding. (Para 15) |
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
3. In this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant who is arrayed as accused no.1 in Summary Criminal Case No. 2291/2014, has challenged the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, Pusad for issuing process against accused nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sectiond 500, 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The non-applicant no.1/complainant has filed a complaint alleging that in daily newspaper “Sakal”, a news item was published in “Yavatmal Today” on 11.09.2014 under the heading “body of Patrakar Sanghatana dissolved”. It is alleged that the said Patrakar Sangh was formed by the local bahujan reporters. In the body of said organization, Balwant Manwar and Sayyad Mujiboddin (respondent no.1) were appointed as a Secretary. After expiry of period of one year, as per the Rules, meeting of the organization was not held. Even after repeated demand by the members to refund the amount deposited by them, the same was not refunded. In December, 2022, a grand function was organized by the said organization/sangh. The members asked the President and the Secretary to provide the account of the said programme, however, they gave evasive answers to the members. It is stated that the news item was false and frivolous. A specific allegation was made that money of the members was misappropriated. This defamed the complainant.
5. Accused no.1 was the Chief Editor, accused no.2 was the Executive Editor, Printer and Publisher, whereas accused no.3 was the reporter for the concerned area. It is stated that the accused are jointly and severally liable for the prosecution. Learned Magistrate conducted necessary enquiry in the matter. The learned Magistrate was pleased to call for the report of police. On the basis of the enquiry and report of the police, process was issued against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
6. The applicant/accused no.1 has taken serious exception to the impugned order of issuance of process on various grounds. The main ground is that the applicant/accused no.1 is the Chief Editor of the newspaper and therefore, by his designation itself he is not liable to be prosecuted. The second important ground pleaded is that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant/accused no.1 with regard to his role and knowledge about the news item.
7. I have heard Mr. R. R. Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. H.D. Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no.2/State. Despite service of the notice to the non-applicant no.1/complainant, he remained absent.
8. Learned advocate for the petitioner took me through the record and proceedings and particularly the news item and the other documents to contend that the applicant/accused cannot be held responsible and prosecuted for the printed matter in daily newspaper “Sakal”, dated 11.09.2014. The learned advocate submitted that the applicant/ accused no.1 being the Chief Editor of the newspaper is not liable to be prosecuted for the news item as per the declaration already submitted in terms of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act , 1867 (for short ‘the Act of 1867). Learned advocate in order to substantiate his submission has placed on record a copy of the newspaper and drew my attention to the imprint line of new
