(1.) Heard Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri.Chandranath Ariga, learned Advocate for respondents.
(2.) The first petitioner is the Chairman and second petitioner is the Managing Director of Chitra Publications Private Limited. The respondent filed a private complaint in PCR No.64/2012 alleging inter alia that several articles in a newspaper called "Karavali Ale" contained derogatory news items touching upon the reputation of complainant's brother N.B.Aboobaker. After considering the complaint, sworn statement and other materials on record, the learned Magistrate directed to register Criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued process. The petitioners have challenged the criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court.
(3.) Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned Advocate arguing for the petitioners submitted that under Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1957 ('Act' for short), the publisher is required to print the name of the printing press, place of printing, name of publisher and name of publication. It is submitted that under Section 7 of the Act, office copy of declaration shall be treated as prima facie evidence in any legal proceedings against person whose name shall be subscribed in such declaration. Adverting to document No.11, it is submitted that the said document is the declaration filed under Section 3. The said form discloses the names of publisher, printer, place of publication, name of the printing press, name of the Editor and name of the owners. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in K.M.Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and another, 1992 AIR(SC) 2206 and a decision of this Court in Criminal petition No.6709/2016 decided on 14.12.2016 (B.V.Seetaram and Others Vs. Krishna J.Palemar), she submitted that this Court has held that publisher or the owner of the publishing company would not involve in day to day edition of the newspaper and control its contents.