I VENKATA RAO Vs. AFGHAN KHASIM SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeks to quash the proceedings in CC No.79 of 96 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayadurg, in which the petitioner as Editor of Telugu daily newspaper is sought to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 500 IPC. It appears that the complainant in the said CC, aggrieved by a publication in "Andhra Jyothi" daily newspaper issue dated 29-9-1994 as being defamatory, filed the present complaint naming three accused. Accused No.1 is the President, Muslim Youth Association, Kanekal, accused No.2 is the Correspondent, Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily newspaper, Kanekal, Anantapur District and accused No.3 is the Editor, Andhra Jyothi, Daily Telugu newspaper, Renigunta Road, Tirupati. On summons being issued in the names of these accused, it appears the petitioner herein, who happened to be the Editor on the date of service of summons on him appeared before the Court. Jt was subsequently realised that on the date of the impugned publication, he was not the Editor and accordingly an application was moved before the learned Magistrate for discharging him on the ground that on the date of impugned publication he was not the Editor of the said newspaper. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner himself appeared in response to the summons and that he was examined under Section 251 Cr.PC, on 29-1-1997 and this application was filed after two years. On this ground of delay, the learned Magistrate seems to have refused to consider the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the petition.

(2.) Obviously, there are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioner as such was responsible for the impugned publication. The Editor of the newspaper concerned was shown as accused No.3. When summons were served, accused No.3, who happened to be the Editor on the date of service of summons, appeared before the Court. It is not disputed that as on the date of publication, namely, 29-9-1994, the petitioner was not the Editor. In fact, a copy of the issue of the newspaper concerned of that date would show that one Nanduri Ramamohana Rao's name was printed as Editor of the newspaper. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed material before this Court to show that the petitioner was appointed as Editor on 17-10-1994 and he took charge on 19-10-1994. A few copies of the said newspaper have been filed which show that till 18-10-1994 the name of Nanduri Ramamohana Rao was printed as Editor of the newspaper, in question, and it was only with effect from 19-10-1994 the name of the petitioner is shown as Editor of the said newspaper. In the absence of specific allegation that the petitioner was responsible for the impugned publication, the complainant would have to obviously rely on the presumption that could be raised under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act. Presumption under Section 7 of the said Act can be raised only in respect of the Editor of the newspaper concerned. Unless it is shown that the petitioner was the Editor of the newspaper on the relevant date, no criminal liability for publication of alleged defamatory material can be fastened to him. In this case as seen above, the petitioner obviously was not the Editor of the newspaper on the date of the impugned publication and no criminal liability can be ascribed to him. In the light of such obvious facts, mere delay in approaching the learned Magistrate should not have been a ground for dismissing the petition. As observed by the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 2206, the mere fact that the process was issued does not constitute a bar to drop proceedings against any of the accused persons, if complaint does not prima facie disclose any offence against him. In this case, inasmuch as no offence is disclosed against the petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings cannot be sustained.

(3.) In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.79 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayadurg, shall stand quashed. It is for the petitioner to find ways in accordance with law to proceed against the proper accused.