K RAMCHANDRA MURTHY Vs. B R IMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the second accused in CC No. 181/89 in the court of the II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tanuku. He has filed this petition u/s 482 Crl.P.C. to quash the proceedings against him. That case was instituted on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein for defamation u/s. 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that there was a news item in the Udayam Telugu daily dt. 27-4-89 making certain derogatory statements about the residents of Kakileru village. The complainant being a resident of that village and he is Upa-Sarpanch of that village says that his reputation damaged and therefore he filed this complaint.

(2.) The petitioner is a resident-Editor of Udayam Newspaper at Vijaya-wada. His contention is two fold. One is that the allegations in the case do not constitute an offence u/Ss. 500 or 501 IPC and the imputation is of a general nature and is not intended to make any imputation against any individual in particular. The other ground is that under the Press and Registration of Books Act only the Editor, Printer and publisher of a news paper can be made responsible for publication but none else can be made as accused and since he was neither a printer, nor editor nor publisher of the news paper, he is not liable.

(3.) In order to appreciate the first contention my attention has been drawn to the particular news item published in Udayam, West Godavari District, Supplement dt. 17-4-89. The complainant says that in the said news item it is stated that the youth and elders of Kakileru were playing cards throughout the day even without attending to their normal avocations and in spite of protest made by the villagers they did not stop their practice. It further says that one Karate Master by name J. Tammai Naidu, who is A-3 got it stopped by beating them. As I have stated above the contention of the petitioner is that the said imputation is not aimed at any particular individual but it is a general imputation about the villagers of Kakileru and so the complainant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by it.