in both cases Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3157 of 2011: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.13/2011 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Karur and quash the same.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3258 of 2011:Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 28.02.2011 passed in Cr.M.P.No.1099 of 2011 in C.C.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Honourable Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and allow the petition in Cr.M.P.No.1099/2011 in C.C.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Honourable Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gopinath in both cases ^For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan in both cases :COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure code, challenging the private complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.13 of 2011 for offences under
Sections 499,500 ,
501 and
502 of IPC and the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1099 of 2011, filed under
Section 317 Cr.P.C. to condone the absence of the petitioner.
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only the Chairman and Managing Director of Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, which brings out the Dinamani Newspaper and the petitioner has nothing to do with the publication of news items printed and published in the publication. Further the petitioner did not have any control over the selection of news to be published and he has no knowledge as to what is going to be projected in the newspaper on any particular day. The news and the matters to be published are not brought to his knowledge nor are published with his consent and approval and it does not wait for his concurrence, but the process happens with the employees in the said division and the petitioner's responsibility is to take care of the business developments of the newspaper and incidental activities and he never interfere with the publication of news nor he indulge in bringing out news to his wish. He further submitted that under
Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, it is presumed that the definition ?editor? does not include person described as Chief Editor or Managing Director. As such, the complaint against the petitioner is purely vindictive.
3.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
Section 1(1) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as ?the PRB Act?) defines editor means a person, who controls the selection of the matter that is published in newspaper and in the complaint on hand, admittedly, there is no allegation that the petitioner had control in selecting the matter, which was published in the above news paper.
4.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has neither the Editor nor Printer or Publisher within the meaning of
Section 1(i) and Section 7 of the PRB Act and there is no positive averments in the complaint that he had the knowledge of the objectionable character of the news item published in Dinamani newspaper. As such, the complaint against the petitioner cannot sustain in law in the absence of any specific allegation.
5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to bottom of last page of the Dinamani newspaper, dated 04.12.2010, wherein it has been stated that Printed and Published by R.K.Jhunjhunwala on behalf of Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, at Express Press No.1/2A, Samiar Thoppu, Ramnad High Road, Viraganur, Madurai- 625 009.
6.The learned counsel for the respondent after perusing the bottom of the newspaper, which is extracted above, fairly conceded that the complaint may be quashed in respect of the petitioner alone.
7.Heard both sides.
8.In view of the above, I am inclined to quash the complaint in C.C.No.13/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Karur, in respect of the petitioner alone. Accordingly, the complaint in C.C.No.13 of 2011 is quashed in respect of the petitioner alone. The lower Court is directed to decide the matter independently on merits and in accordance with law in respect of other accused.
9.Since the complaint in C.C.No.13/2011 is quashed by this Court, the issuance of bailable warrant against the petitioner, dated 28.02.2011, in Cr.M.P.No.1099 of 2011, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, is also quashed.
10.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.
.