Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
T. Venkatram Reddy vs Sri M. Malla Reddy And Another on 14 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)ALD110, 1999(1)ALT769
Author: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
Bench: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
ORDER
1. WP No.28387 of 1998 has been filed by one T. Venkatram Reddy s/o, late Sri T. Chandrasekhar Reddy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The averments made in the writ affidavit are as under: The petitioner claims to be one of the partners of the partnership firm, which is running the English Daily "Deccan Chronicle" and which is published from Secunderabad. The first respondent herein filed a criminal case in CC No.730 of 1996 in the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for an offence punishable under Section 501 IPC alleging that certain articles published in the said newspaper relating to the affairs of the Osmania University when the first respondent was functioning as the Vice-Chancellor of the said University (sic are defamatory). In the said complaint, the first respondent had indicated the name of the petitioner as the owner/proprietor of the said newspaper. The petitioner herein was shown as Accused No. 1 in the complaint whereas one Mr. O. Thomas, the publisher of the newspaper, was shown as Accused No.2 and one Mr. P.N.V. Nair was shown as Accused No.3.
3. It is further averred by the petitioner that even as per the version of the first respondent herein i.e., the complainant, the petitioner is the owner/proprietor of the said newspaper while Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the publisher and editor respectively. In the face of the admitted facts, the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad has taken cognizance of the said private complaint and issued summons to all the accused. The petitioner was not aware of the said complaint till recently. The petitioner learnt that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner though he did not receive summons at any point of time.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in an offence of defamation only the Reporter who wrote the article, the publisher and the editor are only liable and not the owner/proprietor of the newspaper and therefore it is the contention of the petitioner that CC No.730 of 1996 filed in the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad against the petitioner be quashed.
5. The learned Counsel Mr. Mahmood All appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein submitted at the Bar that as per the showing of the complainant himself, the petitioner herein is not liable to be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 501 1PC as the petitioner is a partner of the partnership firm which runs daily newspaper called as 'Deccan Chronicle'. The learned Counsel Mr. Mahmood' Ali further submitted that the Reporter, who wrote the article is primarily responsible for defamation if any caused to the complainant. The Editor, who is supposed to edit the news, can be held responsible and the publisher can also be held responsible in a criminal case for defamation. Under Indian Penal Code only the Reporter, who wrote the article, is responsible whereas vicarious liability is fastened on the Editor and the Publisher under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (Act 25 of 1867). But no penal law holds the owner of the press responsible for an action for defamation and therefore it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein that the proceedings in CC No.730 of 1996 pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad be quashed by issuing a writ of mandamus.
6. In order to substantiate the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a ruling reported in Haji C.H. Mohammed Koya v. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya, . Their Lordships were pleased to hold at Para 15 (3) as under:
"That the petitioner has not at all pleaded in his petition the nature of the duties performed or responsibilities shouldered by the appellant as Chief Editor. There is no averment at all in the petition that the appellant controls the selection of matter that is published in the newspaper which alone would make him an editor as defined in Section 1(1) of the Press Act. The word 'Chief Editor' is clearly absent from the Press Act and in fact foreign to it because the Press Act has selected only one person who has a special status and that is the editor who can be sued, if necessary, or can sue and against whom alone a presumption under Section 7 of the Press Act can be drawn. While holding that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press Act is available to the petitioner, the High Court has completely overlooked the aforesaid aspects mentioned by us. The law on the subject is absolutely clear and there are a number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the relevant Sections of the Press Act."
7. The learned Counsel further relied upon a ruling reported in Dasari Narayana Rao v. R.D. Bhagvandas and another, 1986 Crl.LJ 888, which is a ruling of the learned single Judge of this Court in which it is held by the learned Judge of this Court as under: Relying upon another ruling reported in State of Maharashtra v. R.B. Chowdhari, , the learned single Judge held that the complaint filed under Section 501 IPC is not maintainable against the Chairman who was publishing the newspaper.
8. The learned Counsel further relied upon a ailing reported in Udayam Telugu Daily, 7/1 Azamabad Industrial Area and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987 Crl.LJ 145, in which the learned single Judge of this Court held that "publication of defamatory news item in newspaper-merely because accused is Chairman of newspaper Company he cannot be imputed with knowledge of publication." The learned Counsel pointed out para 12 from the same ruling in which a submission was made by the learned Additional Advocate-General to the effect that the complainant will lead evidence to show that the Chairman of the newspaper also conspired. But the said contention was negatived by the learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that there is no averment in the complaint itself contributing knowledge or conspiracy on the part of the Chairman of the newspaper.
9. In the present case also admittedly the petitioner herein is a partner of the newspaper which publishes the daily newspaper 'Deccan Chronicle'. There is no averment in the complaint that the complainant conspired with the Reporter, Publisher and Editor but only a general and vague allegation is made.
10. While rebutting the aforesaid arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant submitted at the Bar that the complainant be given an opportunity to establish that the petitioner also conspired with other accused in defaming the complainant. Such prayer cannot be granted in view of the aforesaid ruling. It is already pointed out that primarily the Reporter is responsible for his act of defamation, then vicarious liability is fastened on the publisher and editor of the newspaper under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. No where the criminal liability is fastened on the owner/partner of the firm which publishes the daily newspaper and therefore this Court is of the considered view that the complainant himself did not allege in the complaint that the owner/partner of the firm had conspired with the other accused in defaming the complainant.
11. Considering the above position in law, this Court is of the considered view that the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad wrongly issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner herein and therefore it is quashed.
12. Therefore, WP No.28387 of 1998 stands allowed. No costs, WP No.21887 of 1998: This writ petition is filed by the complainant ie., 1st respondent in WP No.28387 of 1998, with a prayer to direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein i.e., the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and the Station House Officer, Ramgopalpet Police Station, Secunderabad, to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against the 3rd respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in WP No.28387 of 1998. Since WP No.28387 of 1998 is allowed and the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against Al (i.e., the petitioner in WP No.28387 of 1998,) in CC No.730 of 1996 is quashed, the prayer in this writ petition against Al cannot be allowed. It was submitted that A2 and A3 in CC No.730 of 1996 have already appeared in the Court. Therefore this Court holds that no further orders are necessary in this writ petition.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.