Digantha Mudrana Pvt. Ltd. vs Radhakrishna K.

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No. 3965/2013 pending before the JMFC (II-Court), Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District and consequently set aside the order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The records disclose that the respondent herein has filed a private complaint u/s. 200 of Cr.PC registered in PC No. 172/2013 for the offence punishable u/s 500 of IPC against the petitioner and another. A1 being the printer and publisher, owner of Mega Media News, Kannada fortnight and A2 being the owner/Proprietor of Digantha Mudrana Pvt. Ltd., It is alleged that accused No. 2 being the printer who printed the documentary statement against the complainant in the front page head line that "Balmata Pramshupal Tharanath Ethangadi" and made certain allegations against the complainant along with another with a deliberate intention to disrepute the complainant and to bring down his status in the public and in the eyes of his students and colleagues in particular. It is alleged that on 15.10.2013 the accused have made several allegations against Sri Tara Rao, who was the former Principal of Government Women''s First Grade College, Balmatta, Mangalore. It is further alleged that some of the friends of the petitioner on reading the said newspaper statement, came and asked the complainant and thereby the said statement maimed the reputation of the complainant. At paragraph 5 of the complaint, it is stated that A1 being the owner, publisher of "Mega Media News" and A2 being the Printer of the said defamatory article are jointly and directly responsible for the act of defamation. Due to the act of the accused persons, the reputation and goodwill earned by the complainant both in his professional life as well as in his public life has brought down and his character has been assassinated in the public view. Therefore, criminal complaint came to be lodged. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement in support of the complaint averments took cognizance and issued summons to the accused. In pursuance of the said summons, accused No. 2 appeared before the Court and made an application u/s. 258 of Cr.PC seeking for his discharge. However, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application on the ground that it is the summons case and Section 258 of Cr.PC is not applicable.

The learned counsel for the petitioner not only challenged the said order but also questioned the very taking of the cognizance by the learned Magistrate on two grounds:

(1) The petitioner is not liable even if the said statement is defamatory in nature because he has only a printer and he is not having control over the subject matter and he is not the ultimate publisher of the statement. Even if he printed the matter, the publisher can restrain from publishing the said article at any stage. Therefore he only printed the material at the behest of the editor and the publisher of the said newspaper.

(2) It is further contended that even if the entire allegations made in the complaint and the sworn statement at this stage is translated into evidence, it does not disclose or constitute any offence against the petitioner.

Therefore, for these two reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings against him requires to be quashed.

So far as the first ground is concerned, it is worth to note a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court between Gambhirsinh R. Dekare Vs. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Another, wherein at Headnote (C) held that-

"Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867-Sec. 1-Editor and Chief Editor-Distinction between - Act recognized "Editor" and presumption is only against him-The Act does not recognize any other legal entity viz., Chief Editor, Managing Editor etc., for raising presumption - They can be proceeded against only when there is specific allegation.

This has been discussed in detail at paragraph 20 of the above cited decision, which reads thus-

"20. In this case the accused was the Chief Editor of Malyalam Manorama and there was no allegation against him in the complaint regarding knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter published. In the absence of such allegation, the Magistrate decided to proceed against the Chief Editor. On an application by the Chief Editor, the process if sued against him was recalled. The High Court, however, set aside the order of the Magistrate and when the matter travelled to this Court, it set aside the order of the High Court. This Court made distinction between "Editor'' and ''Chief Editor''. In no uncertain terms the Court observed that the Press and Registration of Books Act recognizes ''Editor'' and presumption is only against him. The Act does not recognize any other legal entity viz., Chief Editor, Managing Editor etc., for raising the presumption. They can be proceeded against only when there is specific allegation."

Looking to the above said legal aspects, it is clear that the Editor is the person who is having full control over the subject matter, is the person ultimately add the news and give it for printing and publication. The printer is the only person who act according to the direction of the Editor and his responsibility is to print the same and give it out. The allegations in the complaint that he intentionally knowing fully well made the said defamatory statement and prints the same, then only he is also liable and there must be specific allegation in the complaint in so far as this aspect is concerned.

As I have already stated, in the complaint it is only stated that accused are jointly responsible for the act of defamatory statement except that nothing has been spelt out specifically so far as A2 is concerned that knowing fully well he intentionally printed the same. As I have already noted, the Editor has to take the decision as to publish the said statement or not.

Even in the Sworn Statement recorded, in one sentence it is stated that A1 being the printer and publisher of Mega Media and specifically is the printer and they are responsible for the defamatory statement. Except that nothing has been stated in detail in a vivid and reckless manner as to how and in what manner the petitioner has participated intentionally to publish the said defamatory statement against the petitioner. Therefore, looking to the above said circumstances and in view of the above said decision that there are no specific vivid and reckless allegations in the complaint, the complaint is not maintainable so far as the printer is concerned. However, presumption is available and the Court can proceed with such person.

With these observations, the Petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the Petition is allowed and the proceedings so far as it relates to this petitioner, is hereby quashed.