JOY BROTO ROY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rashtriya Sahara', a Hindi newspaper (Delhi edition) published an article concerning respondent No. 2 herein/complainant underthe caption "Iran Say Uphaar Mein Mili Pustakein Bech Di Professor Nay." According to the complainant, in the said article there were false and malicious allegations against the complainant which constituted offence of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 500, IPC. The complainant, therefore, filed complaint under Sections 499-502, IPC against five persons, namely, the correspondent, the Editor, the Printer, the Publisher (accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5) as well as Managing Editor of the said newspaper as accused No. 2. Summoning order dated 22.7.2000 has been passed against all the accused persons. The petitioner (accused No. 2) has filed this petition for quashing of the said summoning order. The limited ground taken is that "As a Managing Editor he is not concerned and responsible for the said publication and, therefore, cannot be arraigned as accused person."

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the Managing Editor of the said newspaper as the complainant himself described him so in the complaint. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 draws certain presumptions against certain persons, including the 'Editor'. The word 'Managing Editor' is not included in the said section and, therefore, no such presumption can be drawn against the Managing Editor. This aspect stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr., I (1992) CCR 316(SC)=JT 1991 (4) S.C. 464, wherein the Court held as under:

(3.) Perusal ofthe complaint would otherwise show that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint. In fact, the petitioner's application for discharge was dismissed by the learned MM only on the ground that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1967 defines Editor as "the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in the newspaper" and treated the petitioner as covered under the said definition. As pointed out above, so far as this ground is concerned, the aforesaid observations of the learned Trial Court are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr. (supra). This petition accordingly succeeds. The summoning order issued against the petitioner (accused No. 2) are quashed and the complaint against the petitioner is dismissed.