1862/2007 Page 7 of 13
reference to Resident Editor, Executive Editor, Managing
Editor in the said Act. There are no allegations against the
aforesaid ... petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who are
described as Executive Editor, Managing Editor and Resident
Editor and in the absence of presumption available
Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper, petitioner No. 2 Shri Arun Shorie is the Executive Editor, petitioner No. 3. Shri Prabhat Joshi is the Resident ... daily routine he had asked the editor/sub-editor etc. to select the news items. The term 'editor' is defined
accused No.6 who though not
named but was referred as Resident Editor, Times of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. accused ... 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
2010, Mr. Sudeep Mukhia (Accused No. 4)
was the Resident Editor (Delhi) of the Hindustan Times and
was the person in charge and responsible ... prosecuted on
the ground that they in their capacity as local editor/resident
editor/publisher and printer, etc. etc. took part in the advertisement
Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books
Act, 1867 normally an editor can only be prosecuted cannot be adhered
to. In K.M.Mathew ... wherein the complainant has alleged either Managing Editor, Chief
Editor or Resident Editor had knowledge and were responsible for
publishing defamatory matters in respect
Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books
Act, 1867 normally an editor can only be prosecuted cannot be adhered
to. In K.M.Mathew ... wherein the complainant has alleged either Managing Editor, Chief
Editor or Resident Editor had knowledge and were responsible for
publishing defamatory matters in respect
Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books
Act, 1867 normally an editor can only be prosecuted cannot be adhered
to. In K.M.Mathew ... wherein the complainant has alleged either Managing Editor, Chief
Editor or Resident Editor had knowledge and were responsible for
publishing defamatory matters in respect
public. Consequently, we issued show cause notice to Sh. M.K. Tayal, Editor, Mid Day, Mr. Vitusha Oberoi and Mr. S.K. Akhtar, its Printer ... Editor Mid Day, Mr. S.K. Akhtar, Publisher, Mrs. Vitusha Oberoi, Resident Editor and Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan, the Cartoonist, guilty of contempt of court
contemplated that the printer, publisher and
editor of a newspaper should ordinarily be residents in India, there was no
specific provision to this effect ... purpose of the legislation requiring an editor to be an
ordinary resident in India is not expressly forthcoming from the statement
of purpose/objects
dated 21.04.2017 published by
factordaily. It is stated that the answering defendant resides and works in
Mumbai and these statements of the answering defendant contained ... also based in Bangalore. Defendant No, 13,
the Editor of the article is admittedly a resident of Bangalore. Hence, this court
does not have territorial
