Karnataka High Court
Vijay S/O. Basavanneppa Sankeshwar vs Shri. Gudusab S/O. Modinsab Gadadalli on 26 March, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10920/2013
BETWEEN :
VIJAY
S/O. BASAVANNEPPA SANKESHWAR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O. 'GIRIRAJ ANNEXE',
CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD,
HUBLI-580029.
(FORMERLY PRINTER & PUBLISHER
OF VIJAY KARNATAKA, KANNADA
DAILY BAGALKOT EDITION).
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SHRI GUDUSAB
S/O MODINSAB GADADALLI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDENT OF KERUR, TAL. BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SADIQ N. GOODAWALA, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
10.02.2012 PASSED IN C.C.NO.51/2012 ON THE FILE OF
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BADAMI AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 500, 501 AND 502 OF IPC
AND CONSEQUENTIALLY QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.
NO. 51/2012 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.2.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.51/2012 on the file of Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Badami, registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity).
2. The brief facts that emanate from records are that a person by name Sri. Gudusab S/o Modinsab Gadadalli lodged a complaint before J.M.F.C. Badami making this petitioner as accused No.2 alleging that all the accused persons including the petitioner have printed and published 3 a defamatory statement against the complainant in Kannada daily newspaper, "Vijay Karnataka", which is circulated throughout Karnataka.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously argued that accused No.2 is nowhere connected with printing and publishing of any article in the newspaper. On the other hand, it is the Editor, who edits and publishes the news in the newspaper. In the absence of any specific allegations against the petitioner, no criminal prosecution can be continued.
4. It is further argued that, the records disclose that the averments made by the complainant are omni bus in nature. Complainant has not specifically narrated what is the role of each and every accused. It is stated in the complaint that the accused knowing fully well that the complainant has a reputation of honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour has published in Kannada daily 4 newspaper, which has circulation throughout the State of Karnataka a false and defamatory article in Newspaper dated 29.07.2006 under the caption "Bombay Bomb Blast Kerur Fairoz Arrested". It is also alleged that in the said article all the accused persons have made false allegations against him alleging that complainant was behind the bomb blast in Bombay. Those allegations are false to the knowledge of the accused. The accused have further reported that complainant has involved himself in a terrorist organisation, is arrested by police and he is in close contact with ISI links, and during investigation he has confessed that he had conspired to blast the Alamatti and Kaiga Dams and reported that complainant has conspired for Bangalore IISC attacks. It is further alleged that accused had published the said report with an intention to harm the reputation of complainant and lower his esteem in the eyes of his friends, other relatives and general public. In view of the above allegations complainant has requested the Court 5 to enquire into the matter for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of I.P.C.
5. On perusal of the entire complaint averments as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner there is no special or specific allegation against the present petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2. The complaint discloses that the petitioner is described as Managing Director of Vijayananda Printers Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. In the complaint it is nowhere explained as to what is the exact duty of accused No.2 in the Vijayananda Printers Limited. In this background the learned counsel for petitioner relying upon a decision of the Apex court submits that except the Editor of the newspaper or Chief Editor or anybody who is in the helm of affairs no other person or legal entity is liable for any criminal prosecution. Therefore, he requested that the proceedings against the accused No.2/petitioner herein is liable to be quashed.
6
6. I have carefully perused the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 SAR (Criminal) 523 between Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel & Anr. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at para 18 which is extracted hereunder :
" 18. Therefore, from the scheme of the Act it is evident that it is the Editor who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Further, every copy of the newspaper is required to contain the names of the owner and the Editor and once the name of the Editor is shown, he shall be held responsible in any civil and criminal proceeding. Further, in view of the interpretation clause, the presumption would be that he was the person who controlled the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper. However, we hasten to add that this presumption under Section 7 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption and it would be deemed a sufficient evidence unless the contrary is proved. The view which we have taken finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of K.M. Mathew v. K.A. 7 Abraham, (2002) 6 SCC 670, in which it has been held as follows:
"20. The provisions contained in the Act clearly go to show that there could be a presumption against the Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper to the effect that he is the Editor of such publication and that he is responsible for selecting the matter for publication. Though, a similar presumption cannot be drawn against the Chief Editor, Resident Editor or Managing Editor, nevertheless, the complainant can still allege and prove that they had knowledge and they were responsible for the publication of the defamatory news item. Even the presumption under Section 7 is a rebuttable presumption and the same could be proved otherwise. That by itself indicates that somebody other than Editor can also be held responsible for selecting the matter for publication in a newspaper."8
7. In view of the above said observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is specifically mentioned in the said decision that every copy of the newspaper is required to contain the names of the owner and the Editor and once the name of the Editor is shown, he shall be held responsible for all civil and criminal proceedings. The presumption drawn under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, that the Editor alone is liable.
8. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the petitioner can go and approach the trial Court for discharge. For that also the above said Apex Court decision covered the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338, wherein it is stated that the Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent powers to review his own order and the remedy only lies in invoking Section 482 of the Code. The Apex Court has virtually set at rest the principles laid down in K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala, (1992) 1 SCC 217, wherein, in the said case the 9 Supreme Court has earlier held that the Magistrate can recall the erroneous order of issuance of process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the said case would run counter to the scheme of Code, which does not provide for review and prohibits interference at interlocutory stage itself.
9. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court and on perusal of the entire allegations made in complaint, as rightly observed, no special or specific allegation is made against the Managing Director i.e., the petitioner herein. Unless specific allegations are made or specific role of accused No.2 is narrated, it cannot be said that the petitioner gets any right to prosecute accused No.2. It is also worth to reiterate that the Apex Court has also observed in the above said decision that the Editor is the person, who controls selection of the matter i.e., published in the newspaper. Further, the Editor is liable for all civil and criminal proceedings. When the act as referred to in the 10 above said decision, does not recognise any another legal entity Chief Editor and Managing Editor for raising presumption they cannot be proceeded against unless there is a special and specific allegation against them. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are applied to present complaint averments there is no special or specific allegation against petitioner - accused No.2 and the Magistrate has not at all looked into this particular aspect. The omni bus complaint against all the accused persons, in my opinion, is not sufficient to draw an inference to specifically say the role of petitioner herein in printing and publishing the news against complainant. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, petitioner has made out a substantial ground to interfere with the orders passed by Magistrate. Hence, the orders passed by Magistrate, so far it relates to petitioner is concerned, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following- 11
ORDER Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, orders passed by Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Badami in C.C. No.51/2012 in taking cognizance and issuing process against this petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of I.P.C. so far as it relates to this petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed.
However the learned Magistrate can proceed against other accused persons in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE Rbv/