ORDER

The petitioner herein is the 7^th accused in S.T. No.29/2016 (renumbered as S.T. No.28/2019) of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He seeks to quash all proceedings in the said case, which was registered pursuant to a private complaint preferred by the first respondent herein vide Annexure-A1 against several persons, including the petitioner. It was alleged that a news item which was aired in the channel, as also, published in the newspaper was defamatory, attracting offences under Sections 499 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is preferred by the petitioner essentially on the premise that the petitioner, being the General Manager of the Deshabhimani daily, is not responsible for the publication of the specific news items in the daily. Nor is there any specific allegation against him in that direction in Annexure-A1 complaint. Learned counsel would rely on a series of decisions in this regard, about which further reference will be made here below.

3. Though notice was issued to the first respondent and a counsel has filed vakalath on his behalf, there is no representation for the first respondent today before this Court. As a matter of fact, this case was heard on the previous posting date ie., 01.10.2024. On that date, this Court, having heard the counsel for the petitioner, adjourned the matter for hearing the first respondent, who was absent on that day as well. However, today also, there is no representation for the first respondent.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent would submit that, since this being a case registered pursuant to a private complaint, the second respondent has no specific submission to be made. In the circumstances, the case is heard and is taken up for orders.

5. The legal position with respect to the responsibility/liability of a person, other than the editor of a newspaper was the subject matter of a catena of decisions of this Court, as also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The first decision is to be taken note of is C.H.Mohammed Koya v. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya [AIR 1979 SC 154]. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after noticing the object of the Press Act and referring to its statement of objects and reasons, held that the editor of the daily is the person responsible for selection and publication of news items and an aggrieved person can sue only that person under the provisions of the Press Act. In other words, the aggrieved person is relieved from the necessity to make a fishing or roving enquiry against other persons, who are individually responsible for publishing the offending matters.

6. In Dasari Narayana Rao v. R.D.Bhagvandas and another [1986 Criminal Law Journal 888], it was held that a Chairman of a Company which publishes a newspaper, not being the printer, editor or publisher, cannot be implicated, so long as he does not have any knowledge of the contents over the articles published in the newspaper, on which premise, the proceedings against him were quashed.

7. In Maman Mathew v. Instrumentation Ltd.

[1988 (2) KLT 438], a learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon the decision in C.H.Mohammed Koya (supra) to hold that the editor of a newspaper is responsible for all the matters published in that newspaper and unless there is specific allegation and proof that the Managing Editor or Chief Editor of the daily was responsible for the publication of a particular news item, or that the news item was selected and caused to be published at their instance, a case will not lie against them.

8. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in M.M. Hassan v. State of Kerala [2016 SCC Online KER 16925] held that in the absence of specific allegation against the petitioner therein, as having knowledge of the publication, the Managing Director of the television channel cannot be held liable for having committed the offence under Section 499 of the Penal Code.

9. Finally and more importantly, in respect of t