ABDULLA Vs. CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the second accused person in C.C.31/95 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur. It is a case instituted on a complaint by the first respondent alleging an offence under S.501 IPC. According to the complaint, the first accused who is the second respondent herein is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of an evening daily 'Mukhapathram'. The petitioner/second accused is shown as the Managing Editor. They published an article in the evening newspaper alleging that undesirable activities were going on in the Baptist Theological College under the management of the complainant. The complainant described himself as the Registrar and Head of that institution, which is locally known as the Bible College and mentioned as such in the article. A copy of the complaint is produced as Annexure A1. The objectionable material is quoted therein, which prima facie shows defamatory allegations against the institution and its management. The petitioner who is the second accused sought a discharge from the learned Magistrate contending that he was described only as the Managing Editor. The learned Magistrate declined the prayer. Hence he has filed this petition praying for quashing the complaint as against him.

(2.) It is contended before this court that the complainant is not competent to file the complaint. But prima facie, the order produced does not show that such an argument was advanced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner is the Head of the institution. The statements in the publication contain prima facie defamatory allegations against the institution as a whole and its members and the persons in management. So, it is not possible to accept the argument that the complainant is not an aggrieved person. Another argument advanced is that the petitioner is only described as the Managing Editor and hence is not liable for prosecution. The decisions reported in Mathew v. Nalini ( 1987 (2) KLT 286 and Ramkumar v. K.M. Mathew ( 1988 (1) KLT 579 ) show that Editor is liable for the material published by virtue of the provisions in S.7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The Chief Editor or the Managing Editor will be liable only if they are responsible for selection of the materials for publication. In this case, there is a specific averment in the complaint that both the accused are jointly in charge of the publication of the evening daily and they are jointly liable for all acts and offences committed by the publication of the evening daily. The averments in this petition itself show that the petitioner who was the Managing Editor has subsequently taken over as Editor, Printer and Publisher on 31-7-1995. Thus it is possible that he was also responsible for selection of the materials even on the date of the publication. If the petitioner is made an accused only in his capacity as a Managing Editor or a Chief Editor, the prayer for quashing the complaint can be considered. But in this case, there is an averment in the complaint that he is also responsible for the offending publication. So, it is a matter for evidence. The petitioner has necessarily to take up his defence before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the complaint or discharging the petitioner cannot be granted. In the above view of the matter, this petition is dismissed.