P A ABDUL HAKKIM Vs. RAMESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the liability of a person who had declared himself to be the Printer and Publisher in respect of a publication This is the crucial question that arises for consideration in this Crl. M.C.

(2.) On fundamental facts there is no dispute. The first respondent, who claims to be a social worker, is aggrieved by a defamatory publication against him in a news paper, of which accused 1 to 3 are the Printer and Publisher, Editor and the local news reporter respectively. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 viz. the Printer and Publisher (A1) and the Editor (A2). At the moment, there is no contention that the publication a copy of which is produced before Court, is not perse defamatory. The learned Magistrate, on the complaint; by the first respondent, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC against all the three accused. The petitioner have rushed to this court with this Section 482 CrPC with the prayer that the complaint may be quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioners by invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court.

(3.) What is the reason Eventhough claim for quashing is made on behalf of both the petitioners, i.e. Printer and Publisher (A1) and the Editor (A2), the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly does not press the claim for quashing of the proceedings in so far as the second petitioner (2nd accused) is concerned. That appeals to me as a very reasonable and fair stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the light of the decision in Mathew v. Abraham, 2002 3 KerLT 282 (SC). The second petitioner/accused is alleged to be the Editor of the daily. His name is printed as such in the daily. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) squarely applied and it is certainly for him to contend and establish in the trial that notwithstanding Section 7 of the said Act and notwithstanding the fact that his name is printed in the news paper as Editor, he is not responsible for choosing the materials. It must be noted that the second petitioner is declared to be the Editor proper and not the Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor. It is hence not necessary for me to consider the claim of the second petitioner for quashing the proceedings against him as that part of the claim is not pressed after discussions at the Bar.