Vicky Mahajan v. Udhampur

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C is being invoked by the petitioner for quashment of complaint titled as Public Prosecutor vs Sneh Gupta & Ors pending before the learned Session Judge Udhampur (for brevity ‘Trial Court’) with all the consequential criminal proceedings initiated there under.

The genesis of the case is that petitioner is working as Executive Editor in the Himalayan Mail, News paper. The said newspaper published a news in its edition dated 29.2.2004, wherein it was published that Vijay Singh Sambyal SSP Udhampur who was transferred from Doda during the last assembly polls on the E C intervention for siding with a political party was transferred this time also and posted as Assistant Director 2 CRMC 259/2017 in PTA Udhampur and this time he was associated with a new political party for whose MLA's he arranged dinner almost every week. Feeling aggrieved, of the said publication, SSP Vijay Singh Sambyal requested the Public Prosecutor Sessions Court, Udhampur vide his letter dated 31.3.2004 to examine the matter and take necessary action under law inconsonance with Section 198-B Cr.P.C and the provisions of RPC. The respondent herein applied to the Government for obtaining the requisite sanction in terms Section 198-B (3) Cr.P. C and Financial Commissioner Home vide its Order No. 307 (P) of 2004 dated 20.8.2004 granted sanction for prosecution against the owner, editor, publisher and executive editor of the Himalayan

Mail News paper. After obtaining the sanction the respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 500 RPC on 27.8.2004 before the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur wherein petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No. 2 in the said complaint.

On filing the aforesaid complaint, the Trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued process. It is stated that accused No. 1 has passed away and accused No. 3 filed a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C bearing no. 231/2012 challenging proceedings against him and the same was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.7.2016 and proceedings against him have been quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is Executive Editor of Himalayan Male Newspaper and is not concerned with the every portion of the issue of the said newspaper and it is the Editor who controls the selection of the matter i.e., published in the newspaper. It is stated that the complainant has relied upon the presumption under Section 7 3 CRMC 259/2017 of the Press and Registration of Books, Act, but this Section has no applicability for a person who is simply named as Executive Editor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are no specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner holding him the person responsible for the selection of the news item mentioned in the complaint, therefore, the petitioner cannot be implicated as an accused in the above said complaint. It is stated that Financial Commissioner, Home while granting sanctioned under Section 198-B Cr.P.C for filing the complaint has not considered the aforesaid facts and has granted sanctioned without application of mind, therefore, the complaint filed against the petitioner is illegal and malafide and deserves to be quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the record tends to show that Financial Commissioner Home vide its Order No. 307 (P) of 2004 dated 20.8.2004 granted sanction for prosecution against the owner, editor, publisher and executive editor of the Himalayan Mail News paper.

Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 raises a presumption that a person whose name is printed in a copy of a newspaper is the editor of every portion of that issue. Section 7 of the Act, reads as under:-

7. Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence.—In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil as criminal, the production of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of some Court empowered by this Act to have the custody of 4 CRMC 259/2017 such declarations, 1[or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor] shall be held (unless the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, 1[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) of every portion of every 2[newspaper] whereof the title shall correspond with title of the 2[newspaper] mentioned declaration, 5[or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced].

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. R. B. Chowdhary & Ors, reported in AIR 1968 SC 110, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "The term 'editor' is defined in the Act to mean person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Where there is mentioned an editor as a person who is responsible for selection of material section 7 raises presumption in respect of such a person. The name of that person has to be printed on the copy of the newspaper and in the present case the name of Madane admittedly as printed as the editor of the Maharashtra in the copy of the Maharashtra which contained the defamatory article. The declaration in Form I which has been produced before us shows the name of Madane not only as the printer and publisher but also as the editor. In our opinion the presumption will attach to Madane as having selected the material for publication in the newspaper. In the circumstances not only the presumption cannot be drawn against the others who had not declared themselves as editors of the 5 CRMC 259/2017 newspaper but it is also fair to leave them cut because they had no concern with the publishing of the article in question".

A perusal of the record shows that co-accused Arun Sharma was the resident editor of a newspaper (supra) and was arrayed as accused No. 3 in the complaint. He approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C (being 561-A Cr.P.C No. 2312/2012) seeking quashment of the complaint and the proceedings against him. The said petition was considered and allowed by this Court vide order dated

Considering the aforesaid, there is no evidence which shows the involvement of the petitioner with the making, printing or publishing of the news item in question, as the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Executive Editor and presumption under Section 7 (supra) does not apply to a Executive Editor.

In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed and the complaint titled as Public Prosecutor vs Sneh Gupta & Ors, pending before the learned Session Judge Udhampur and the proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the petitioner are quashed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE Jammu 01.07.2022 Bir Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No