RAMKUMAR Vs. K M MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.C. No. 496 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam was taken to file for an offence punishable under S.500 read wish S.34 of the Indian Penal Code against two accused on a private complaint filed by the petitioner. First accused is Shri K.M. Mathew, Chief Editor, Malayala Manorama Daily published from Kottayam Second accused is Shri Mammen Varghese, Printer and Publisher of the same paper. First accused filed M P. No. 1896 of 1987 based on a decision of this Court in Mathew v. Nalini ( 1987 (2) KLT 286 ) requesting that the proceedings against him may be dropped. The prayer was allowed by order dated 5-12-1987 and the Magistrate ordered the complaint to be proceeded against the second accused alone. The correctness and propriety of that order is under challenge by the complainant.

(2.) Mathew's case (1987 (2) KLT 286) said:

(3.) That was a proceeding under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint. The complaint was set aside in that case in exercise of the inherent powers only in so far as it relates to the Chief Editor for the reasons mentioned above. It has also been stated in the order that in the complaint there was no averment that the Chief Editor, against whom the complaint was quashed, was the person who selected the material for publication or that he was in any manner responsible for its publication. In the light of those facts, it was held that S.7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 read with definition of editor in S.1(1) thereof cannot implicate the Chief Editor as an offender. That decision cannot be taken as laying down a uniform rule of law that whatever be the allegation in a complaint of defamation against a person, who happens to be the Chief Editor, the complaint cannot proceed against him. If the Chief Editor was made an accused only in that capacity and there is no allegation that he bad anything to do with the selection of the matter for publication or that he was in any other manner responsible for publication, it may not be correct to implicate him as an accused;