Jayanta Baruah And Anr vs Jagat Narayan Jadav

Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent despite service of process.

The petitioner No.1 is the proprietor of daily newspaper "Asomiya Pratidin", Maniran Dewan Path, Chandmari, Guwahati and the petitioner No.2 is the Executive Editor of the said newspaper.

The respondent lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar under Section 500/34 IPC vide CR Case No.200/2004 alleging inter-alia that he is a first class contractor of PWD Department and he has a good reputation in the society. But for publishing of news item in the aforesaid newspaper dated 06.04.2004 under the caption "Jagat Narayan is controlling Hojai Revenue Department and also tried to manage the Municipal Board" which is a false and baseless allegation, the reputation of the complainant/respondent has been lowered down in the society and has caused irreparable harm to him. Denying each and every allegation in the news item in detail in the complaint petition it is contended that all such allegations are false and baseless which will cause irreparable loss to him, he filed the complaint against the aforesaid newspaper and arrayed the Editorial Adviser, Editor, Executive Editor (present petitioner), Printer/owner (present petitioner) and another Printer as well as the reporter of the said newspaper as accused persons.

The learned trial court took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 500/501/34 IPC against the accused/petitioners and proceeded for trial and refused to discharge the accused/petitioners from the said case, on the prayer made by the petitioners in view of the order passed by this Court in a similar situation in Criminal Revision No.567/2004 dated 19.01.2016 wherein this Court quashed the proceeding against the petitioners on the similar accusation made against the petitioners by holding that the petitioners being the owner and Executive Editor are not responsible for publication of such news item as regard the same complainant in respect of another publication of news dated 20.02.2004 in the same newspaper. The aforesaid order of refusal dated 02.04.2016 as well as the entire proceeding as against the present petitioners has been challenged by way of this applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Considered the submission made before this Court as well as the complaint filed by the respondent and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.

The two petitioners before this Court are the owner and the Executive Director of the said newspaper "Asomiya Pratidin" and the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as has been held by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition 567/2004 order dated 19.01.2016, the present two petitioners has no role to play for publishing the aforesaid news item and in terms of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, except the Editor, Printer and publisher no other persons are liable for publishing any news item and hence, they are not liable to face criminal proceeding under Section 500/501/34 IPC. In this context, the learned trial court has also referred and relied upon the decision of this Court as reported in (2017) 3 GLR 364 Ghisalal Agarwalla and Others vs State of Assam and Others wherein also this Court has reiterated the same proposition of law that the Editor, Printer and publisher are the persons responsible for publication of any defamatory item in a newspaper.

In the instant case it is an admitted position that the petitioner No.1-Jayanta Baruah is the owner of the newspaper and the petitioner No.2 is the Executive Editor of the said newspaper and both of them were also impleaded in earlier litigation exactly with similar accusation in CR Case No.168/2004 by the same respondent and when the cognizance under Section 500/34 IPC was challenged in Criminal Revision Petition No.567/2004, this Court held as follows:

"9. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Haji C.H. Mohammad Koya vs. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya reported in AIR 1979 SC 154, wherein, the Apex Court while discussion the object of the Press Act observed as follows:

"The object of the Press Act was to regulate printing presses and newspaper in order to preserve copies of newspapers and books. Moreover, in order to avoid multicity of suits and uncertainties of liabilities, it was considered necessary to choose one of the persons from the staff and make him liable for all the articles or matters published in the paper so that any person aggrieved may sue only the person so named under the provisions of the Press Act and is relieved from the necessity of making a fishing or roving enquiry about persons who may have been individually responsible for the offending matters published in the paper."

"The term of 'editor' as defined in S.I. (I) of the Act means a person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Where a person's name is printed in the newspaper as its editor as required by S.5(I) S.7 of the Act raises a rebuttable presumption only against such editor. He can rebut the presumption by showing that he had nothing to do with the publication of the editorial or the news report. But where a person is not shown in the paper to be its editor so such presumption under S.7 of the Press Act can be drawn but it must be held that he has no concern with the publishing of the articles. AIR 1969 SC 110, AIR 1971 SC 856 and AIR 1974 SC 47, Rel.on."

In the instant case, there is no denial by the owner that the accused No.2 in the complainant, Haidar Hussain was the Editor of the newspaper and it is to be presumed that as Editor, he was responsible for publication of the news items in the newspaper, but the presumption is a rebuttable one and he can rebut the presumption by showing that he had nothing to do with the publication of the news reports.

The owner of the newspaper is the petitioner Jayanta Baruah and he has authorized Sri Jatin Choudhury to act as Printer and Publisher and Jatin Choudhury has been shown as Printer and Publisher of the newspaper in the newspaper itself. "Section 1 (i) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 provides that "Editor" means a person who controls the Selection of the matters that is published in a newspaper. Section 7 of the said Act provides that "in any legal proceeding whether civil or criminal, the production of a copy of such a declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of the same Court empowered by this Act to have custody of such declaration or (in case of Editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of editor) shall be held (unless contrary is proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed in such declaration (or printed on such newspaper, as the case may be) that the said person was printer or publisher, or printer and publisher (according as the words of the said declaration may be) or every portion of every newspaper whereof the title shall correspondent with the title of the (newspaper) mentioned in the declaration (or) the Editor or every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced. In view of the above where a person's name is printed in the newspaper as it's Publisher and Printer and Editor as required by Section 5(1), Section 7 of the Act raises a refutable presumption only against such persons. But where a person is not shown in the paper to be it's Editor no such presumption under Section 7 of the said Act can be drawn but it must be held that he has no concern with the publishing of the Article. This view was held by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in Haji C.H. Mohammad Koya (supra)."

As per provisions of the Act referred to above, the Editor & Printer and Publishers are the persons to be held responsible for publication of any defamatory items along with the reporter, it any, and no liability can be fastened on the owner of the newspaper, the Editor Adviser and executive Editor unless it is shown that they have played any specific role in the publication of the said defamatory item in the newspaper. In the complaint, there is no such specific allegations brought against them and as such, the complaint is liable to be quashed so far the present petitioners are concerned.

In view of the above, the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioners stands quashed. However, the case will proceed against the other accused persons in accordance with law. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action."

The status of present two petitioners obviously covered by the aforesaid decision that being the owner and the Executive Editor of the said newspaper they are not liable for the publication of the said defamatory item, there being no specific allegation brought against them, the entire proceeding pertaining to CR Case No.200/2004 pertaining to the present two petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.