DASARI NARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) My learned brother Jayachandra Reddy, J. took the view in Udayam Telugu Daily Vs. State of A.P-(1) 1986 (1) APLJ. 409 that when there is no specific allegation against the chairman, he cannot be made liable and proceedings against him were quashed. From a perusal of that judgment, it is clear that the learned Advocate-General contended that it is premature at that stage to know whether the chairman was responsible for the publication in question or not. But to my mind, the settled position is, we have to take the allegations per se in the complaint alone and it has been repeatedly held so by the Supreme Court and in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in J.P. Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain And Others (2) AIR 1986 SC 833. In a case where an allegation has been made that Chairman is also responsible for the commission of the offence, the Court must have some basic material to find out what is the part played by him and whether that attracts the provisions of S. 120-B or S. 500 IPC By simply saying that the accused is in no way concerned, it cannot be said that the allegation that has been made against him is incorrect. In a case where there is controversy having regard to the nature of the offence that has been alleged to have been committed by him and whether he was liable or not, it is a matter that has to be enquired into in a full faldgeJ trial. But, it is premature to express any opinion this way or that before the trial. When I am disagreeing with the view expressed by Jayachandra Reddy, J., I feel that the matter be referred to the Bench, especially in view of the latest Supreme Court Judgment. Place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for orders as to constituting the Bench. This petition coming on fo" final hearing on Thursday the 17th day of September, 1987 pursuant to the order of Reference dt. 10-4-1987. The Court delivered the following:- JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Bench Delivered by Anjaneyulu J) 1. This patitipn is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code: to quash the proceeding in C C No. 1 of 1983 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in so far as it related to the petitioner, who is accused No. 1. The matter was initially heard by a learned single Judge who entertained some doubt regarding the correctness of the decision of another learned single Judge on which the petitioner relied. The matter was accordingly referred to a Division Bench. We have heard Shr I. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel for the potitioner and the learned Advocate- General for the State.

(2.) Accused No. 1. in the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor is 'Udayam', a Telugu Daily, published from Hyderabad represented by its Chairman, Sri Dasari Narayana Rao, The petition for quashing the proceedings is filed by Dasari Narayanarao on the ground that he does not represent 'Udayam' accused No. 1 and consequently the complaint, in so far as it proceeded to designate the petitioner as representing the newspaper, should be quashed. The complaint states that all the accused have committed offences undar Secs. 120-B, 500, 501 of the Indian Penal Code, Tarakaprabhu Publishers (P) Ltd.; a company incorporated under the Companies Act, owns the " newspaper. Dasari Narayana Rao is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company.

(3.) According to the declaration dated 26-9-1984 filed by the newspaper, 'Udayam' under section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1967 the publisher of the Newspaper is K. Ramakrishna Prasad, who is the Managing Director of Tarakaprabhu Publishers (P) Limited. The name of the printer of the newspaper is also declared as K. Ramakrishna Prasad. It is further declared that the newspaper is printed in the printing press owned by Tarakaprabhu Publishers (P) Limited, the Editor of the newspaper is shown as A B K- Prasad.