IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5103/2014 C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5102/2014 & 5104/2014 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5103/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. MUNIYAPPA @ MASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.122/11 NEW MANJUNATHA LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560 060. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S. B. TOTAD, ADV.) AND:
SRI G. K. MANJAPPAYYA S/O. KRISHNADEVARAYA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS MAVINAKERE VILLAGE GANGANAKOODIGE POST MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. N. MOHAN, ADV.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN C.C.NO.775/2012 DATED: 11.10.2012 BY WHICH MAGISTRATE WAS PLEASED TO ISSUE PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONER. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.775/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. C.J.M., MUDIGERE.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5102/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. MUNIYAPPA @ MASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.122/11 NEW MANJUNATHA LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560 060. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.B. TOTAD, ADV.) AND:
SRI T. RUDRAYYACHARI S/O. THAMMAYYACHARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS KALASA TOWN AND POST MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.N. MOHAN, ADV.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN C.C.NO.774/2012 DATED: 11.10.2012 BY WHICH MAGISTRATE WAS PLEASED TO ISSUE PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONER. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.774/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. C.J.M., MUDIGERE.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5104/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. MUNIYAPPA @ MASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.122/11 NEW MANJUNATHA LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560 060. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.B. TOTAD, ADV.) AND:
SRI K.A. JAYANTHI W/O. B.S. GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS KALASA FOREST DEPARTMENT KALASA TOWN AND POST MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.N. MOHAN, ADV.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN C.C.NO.9/2012 DATED: 13.12.2011 BY WHICH MAGISTRATE WAS PLEASED TO ISSUE PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONER. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.9/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. C.J.M., MUDIGERE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 in C.C.Nos.775/2012, 774/2012 and 9/2012. The said cases were registered against the petitioner based on the private complaints filed by the respondents herein alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the complainants is that, accused No.1 being the “Editor”, accused No.2 being the “Reporter” and accused No.3 (petitioner) herein being the “Honorary Editor” published a defamatory article against the respondents in the weekly magazine by name ‘Duniya’.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that baseless and omnibus allegation is made in the complaints alleging that at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3, the said defamatory article was published. Going by the averments made in the complaints, the petitioner was only a “Honorary Editor” and is not liable to answer the charges for the alleged publication. The knowledge of the contents of the publication cannot be imputed to the Honorary Editor.
4. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of S. Nihal Singh and others v. Arjan Das, New Delhi reported in 1983 CRL.L.J. 777 wherein, at paragraph No.11 it is held as under:
“11. In other words the printer or the publisher, as the case may be, who has made a declaration under the Act and the editor whose name appears on the copy of the newspaper shall be presumed to be aware of what is printed and published in the issue of the paper. The declaration is prima facie evidence of the publication by the editor of all the news items in the paper. He will not be absolved for the publication of objectionable matter by the mere fact that in the daily routine he had asked the editor/sub-editor etc. to select the news items. The term 'editor' is defined in the Act to mean person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. In the instant case the declaration printed at the bottom of the back page of the newspaper shows that the newspaper had been printed and published for the proprietors Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited by S. K. Kohli, petitioner No. 5 and S. Nihal Singh and Prabhash Joshi are Editor-in- Chief and Resident Editor respectively of the newspaper. Ex. facie a resident editor will be an associate of the Editor-in-Chief in the selection of news items and to that extent he is answerable on a charge of defamation. Hence in view of the foregoing provisions of law a presumption will arise against all three of them that they are printer, publisher. Editor-in-Chief and Resident Editor respectively of the newspaper and as such they are aware of the contents of offending news items. However, it is difficult to draw such a presumption in the case of other petitioners viz. Arun Shorie, petitioner No. 2 and A. M. Dar, petitioner No. 4. Their names do not find place in the declaration printed on the newspaper itself and there is no iota of evidence to show that they are in any manner concerned with the collection, control or selection of the matter printed in the newspaper. Their designations as Executive Editor/Editor of the Express News Service will not per se warrant an inference that they are in any way responsible for the selection of the material. An authority for this view may be found in State of Maharashtra v. R. B. Chowdhari. .AIR 1968 SC 110 : (1968 Cri LJ 95).”
5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the petitioner herein is sought to be prosecuted in his capacity as the Honorary Editor. However, he submits that the allegations are made in the complaints alleging that the said publication was made by accused Nos.1 to 3 and therefore, the petitioner is liable to face the charges for the above offences.
6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the complaints.
7. In the complaints, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 published the defamatory contents against the petitioners therein in the weekly magazine namely, ‘Duniya’. But a perusal of the declaration printed at the back page of the magazine indicate that the petitioner herein was not responsible for the said publication. The declaration issued under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act) reads as under:
“Printed, Published, Edited and Owned by B. Siddegowda No.109/7-1, 1st floor, 18th ‘C’ Main, West of Chord road, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10. Printed at DUNIYA Printers No.90/5 2nd cross, 2nd Main, Industrial Town Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 044. Editor-B. Siddegowda”.
8. Section 7 of the Act lays down that:
“In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil as criminal, the production of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of some Court empowered by this Act to have the custody of such declarations, 3[or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor] shall be held (unless the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, 3[or printed on such newspaper, as the case may be] that the said person was printer or publisher, or printer and publisher (according as the words of the said declaration may be) of every portion of every 4[newspaper] whereof the title shall correspond with the title of the 4[newspaper] mentioned in the declaration, 3[or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced].”
9. In the absence of any material to show that the offending article was published by the petitioner or that he was responsible for selecting the said article for publication and was aware of the defamatory contents thereof, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is legally unsustainable and amounts to abuse of process of law.
10. For the above reasons, the petitions are allowed.
The proceedings pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mudigere in C.C.Nos.775/2012, 774/2012 and 9/2012 are quashed only insofar as the present petitioner namely, accused No.3 is concerned. The proceedings shall proceed in respect of the other accused persons.
Sd/- JUDGE ST