Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dasari Narayana Rao vs R.D. Bhagvandas And Anr. on 29 October, 1985
ORDER
1. This is a petition filed under S. 482 Criminal P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 144/85 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C. No. 144/85 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On a private complaint filed against him and two others under Ss. 500 and 501 of the IPC the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate and summonses were issued to all the three accused, including the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tarakaprabhu Publishers Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as the "company". The primary object of the company as set out in the memorandum of objects and Articles of Association of the Company is to establish, maintain and run a printing press or presses for printing and publishing newspapers, journals, periodicals and magazines etc. The Company publishes a Telugu Daily viz., UDAYAM. The second accused is the Editor while the third accused is the printer, publisher of the daily. The third accused also is the Managing Director of the Company.
4. It is complained by the 1st respondent that some articles were published in the daily on 15-6-1985 and on 22-6-1985 exposing the activities of the management of the Trinity Public School, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad of which he is the Secretary, that the Publications are per se defamatory and that the same were made with the intention of damaging and lowering his reputation and members of his family as also the school run by them.
5. It is urged by Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the allegations levelled or complained against, even if taken at their face value, do not implicate the petitioner in any way, that no offence punishable, either under S. 500 or S. 501 of the Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, that the petitioner has nothing to do with the actual publication of the daily, that the Editor, Printer and Publisher implicated as accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the case are alone answerable for the impugned publications and that in order to prevent abuse of presses of the court the proceedings launched against the petitioner should be quashed.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is neither the Printer nor the Publisher nor the Editor of the daily as evidenced by the declaration lodged under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 hereinafter referred to as the "Act", on 20-9-1984. In the declaration, Sri K. Ramakrishna Prasad is noted as the Publisher of the daily. While furnishing the said information he is also described as the Managing Director of the Company. He is also described as the Printer of the daily. Sri A. B. K. Prasad is described as the Editor of the daily. In fact it is so recited in the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent the presumption of knowledge of awareness of the contents of the daily available under S. 7 of the Act can only be drawn against the Printer or the Publisher or the Editor of the daily. The presumption cannot the pressed into service even against the owner of the daily.
7. In Bhagat Singh v. Lachan Singh, adverting to the liability of the owner of a newspaper for publication of a defamatory statement in the newspaper, it is observed :-
"The owner in order to be liable under S. 499 of the Code has to have direct responsibility for the publication of the defamatory statement and he must also have the intention to harm or knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned. The owner of a journal qua owner has thus no responsibility under the section. The editor of the paper, even though he might not be directly responsible for a defamatory statement published in his paper attract the responsibility by virtue of S. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act by virtue of his registration as editor under the Act which registration is sufficient evidence that he was also the printer or publisher of the paper concerned. The printer and publisher by virtue of their duties as such cannot of course avoid, the legal liability for defamation. The owner's liability will be attracted provided it can be shown that he was responsible for the publication with the necessary interest, knowledge or reasonable belief in the matter."
8. In the State of Maharashtra v. R. B. Chowdhari, a complaint was filed against four persons who were members of the Editorial Board of a Marathi Weekly named (Maharashtra) under S. 500 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was that in an issue of Maharashtra dt. 30-10-1959, they had published an article which intended to defame one M. A. Deshmukh, I.A.S., Collector and District Magistrate, West Khandesh in respect of his conduct in discharge of his public functions. This weekly Maharashtra was registered as a newspaper and a declaration in Form I under S. 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 was filed, by one Sudhakar Gopal Madane who described himself in the declaration as the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the newspaper. The particular issue of the Weekly in which the alleged defamatory Article appeared bore the name of Madane as the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the newspaper. It also showed on the front page, the Editorial Board consisting of the three persons. The additional sessions Judge, Dhulia, who tried the case, held that a prima facie case under Ss. 499 and 500 of the Penal Code was made out against all the four persons. Except Madane, three members of the Editorial Board filed a revision petition before the Bombay High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court held that there was no good ground for framing a charge against them. Accordingly he made an order. On appeal to the Supreme Court by the State of Maharashtra, after extracting S. 7 of the Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held :
"The term 'editor' is defined in the Act to mean a person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper where there is mentioned an editor is a person who is responsible for selection of the material. S. 7 raises the presumption in respect of such person. The name of that person has to be printed on the copy of the newspaper and in the present case the name of Madane admittedly was printed as the Editor of the Maharashtra in the Copy of the "Maharashtra" which contained the defamatory article. The declaration in Form I which has been produced before us shows the name of Madane not only as the printer and publisher but also as the editor. In our opinion the presumption will attach to Madane as having selected the material for publication in the newspaper. It may not be out of place to note that Madane admitted that he had written this article. In the circumstances not only the presumption cannot be drawn against the others who had not declared themselves as editors of newspaper but it is also fair to leave them out because they had no concern with the publishing of the article in question. On the whole therefore the order of discharge made by the learned single Judge appears to be proper in the circumstances of the case and we see no reason to interfere."
9. In S. Nihal Singh v. Arjan Das 1983 Cri LJ 777 it was held by a single Judge of the Delhi High Court that under S. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, the presumption as to awareness of the contents of a defamatory news item available under S. 7 of the Act could only be drawn against the Editor, printer and the Publisher named in the declaration filed under the said Act and not against others. On 4-11-1981 and 5-11-1981 the New Delhi edition of the Indian Express carried same news items alleged to be defamatory in character. The respondent, aggrieved by the news items, instituted a complaint against six persons including late Sri Ramanath Goenka, Chairman M/s. Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Private Limited, a corporate body. In the newspapers containing the impugned publication it was printed that the newspaper was owned by M/s. Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Private Limited, a corporate body. Late Ramanath Goenka was the Chairman of the said company at the relevant time. The complaint was taken in file under Ss. 500 and 501, IPC. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate who had taken the complaint on file holding that a prima facie case was made out against all of them under Ss. 500 and 501, IPC., they filed a revision petition before the High Court of Delhi. Adverting to the liability of late Sri Ramanath Goenka the learned Judge observed :
"Needless to say that as Chairman of the Company Shri Goenka can be held liable for the publication of the offending news items only if it is shown that he was somehow concerned with the publication of the defamatory news items. It is highly doubtful that he can be asked to answer the charge of defamation merely because he happened to be the Chairman of the Company owning the newspaper without there being any further evidence as regards his participation in the actual management and administration of the affairs of the company. Intention on the part of the accused to harm the reputation or the knowledge or reasonable belief that an imputation will harm the reputation of the persons concerned is an essential ingredient of offence under S. 400, IPC but such evidence is totally missing in the instant case. Under the circumstances the impugned order as regards Shri Goenka cannot be sustained on this short ground."
10. After referring to the provisions of Ss. 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Act, the learned Judge added :
"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 mare 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 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. P. Dhar 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 the State of Maharashtra v. R. B. Chowdhari, ".
As already stated, in the declaration lodged under the Act, Sri Ramakrishna Prasad, is named as the printer and publisher of the daily, while Sri A. B. K. Prasad is named as its Editor. Sri Ramakrishna Prasad is also described as the Managing Director, M/s. Tarakaprabhu Publishers Private Limited, Hyderabad. On the last page of the daily, it is printed as under :
"Printed and published by K. Ramakrishna Prasad, Managing Director, on behalf of M/s. Tarakaprabhu Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad at 7/1 Azamabad Industrial Area, Hyderabad 500020 - Phones : 61261, 61262, Editor : A. B. K. Prasad."
The petitioner is only the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company. Though in the complaint it is alleged that the petitioner and the other two accused conspired to malign the first respondent, the complaint was not taken on file under S. 120B read with Ss. 500 and 501 of the Penal Code. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be imputed with knowledge of the contents of the impugned articles printed in the two issues of the newspapers.
11. It is however urged by Sri. P. Sitapati, learned counsel for the first respondent that the petitioner is described as 'Saradhy' of the daily, that his name is so printed in the daily, that his status is much more than that of the Editor and Publisher of the daily, that it is not unreasonable to infer that he is actively associated with the daily and that no case is made out for quashing the complaint at this stage.
12. I find it extremely difficult to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. As already stated, the petitioner is the Chairman of the company. In the context the description 'saradhy' can only mean that the petitioner is either the founder or the chief promoter of the company and nothing more. No knowledge of the contents of the publications in the daily can be ascribed to the petitioner by reason of his description printed in the daily.
13. I, therefore, quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 144/85 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. It is needless to observe that the proceedings against the other accused can go on. The petition is allowed.
14. Petition allowed.