http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR.  R. B. CHOWDHARY & 2 ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/1967

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1968 AIR  110            1967 SCR  (3) 708  CITATOR INFO :  R          1992 SC2100  (51,53)  R          1992 SC2206  (9)

ACT: Press  and  Registration of Books Act (25 of  1967),  s.  7- "Editor", who is-When presumption under the section could be drawn.

HEADNOTE: The  respondents  were members of the Editorial Board  of  a newspaper.  One M, who had made a declaration under s. 5  of the  Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, that he  was the  editor,  printer and publisher of  the  newspaper,  was shown in the newspaper also as its editor.  A complaint  was filed  against M and the respondents that they published  at defamatory  article  in the newspaper.  The High  Court,  in revision,  field That the respondents should be  discharged, because,  M had admitted in his statement under s. 342,  Cr. P.C..  that he wrote the article and because, there  was  no cogent  evidence against the respondents that They were  the editors of the newspaper. In appeal by the State to this Court, HELD:  (i) Though the statement of M under s. 342  Cr.   P.C not  evidence  in favour of the respondents,  there  was  no evidence  to  show  that  they  had  any  concern  with  the publishing of the article. [710 B; 711 C] (ii) Since  M  alone  was  shown to be  the  editor  in  the declaration tinder s.    5 of the Press and Registration  of Books Act, and in the newspaper it could  be presumed  under s. 7 that M was responsible for        the selection of  the material  published,  and his admission that  he  wrote  the article could be taken into consideration against him.   But no such presumption could be drawn against the respondents and they were rightly dischargcd. [711 B].

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1965. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated April 15, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Application No. 17 of 1964. H.   R.  Khanna,  S. P. Nayyar for R. N. Sachthey,  for  the appellant. S. C. Agarwal  for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah,  J.  This is an appeal against an order  of  t learned   Single   Judge  of  the  High  Court   of   Bombay discharging,  the  respondents in a criminal case  in  which they were made accused with one Sudhakar Gopal Madane. The matter arises in this way.  The Public Prosecutor,  West Khandesh,  Dhulia  with the previous sanction of  the  State Government filed a complaint against four , persons   who are members of the Editorial Board of a Maharathi Weekly named                             709 "Maharashtra",  under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code.   The complaint  was  that in an issue of  the  Maharashtra  dated October 30, 1959, they had published an article which tended to defame one M. A. Deshmukh, I.A.S., Collector and District Magistrate,  West Khandesh in respect of his conduct in  the discharge of his public functions.  We need not go into  the facts  of  that  article or the gravamen of  the  charge  of defamation.   This  Weekly Maharashtra is  registered  as  a newspaper  and a declaration in Form 1 under Art. 3  of  the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 has been filed  by Sudhakar  Gopal  Madane  who has described  himself  in  the declaration  as  the editor, printer and  publisher  of  the newspaper.  The particular copy of the Maharashtra in  which the  alleged  defamatory article appeared bore the  name  of Madane   as  the  editor,  printer  and  publisher  of   the newspaper.   It also showed on the front page the  Editorial Board  consisting  of the three respondents and  Madane  the Editor.  The short question which has arisen in the  present matter  is whether the Members of the Editorial Board  other than  the  Editor  can  be  prosecuted  for  the  defamatory article. The  Additional  Sessions Judge Dhulia, who  is  trying  the case, held by an order dated October 26, 1963, that the res- pondents 2, 3 and 4 could be charged with the Editor because they  were  Members of the Editorial Board.   He  held  that there  was no evidence so far adduced by the prosecution  to establish   that  they  were  the  Editors,   Printers   and Publishers  of the Weekly yet in view of the  admissions  of the  respondents  that they were Members  of  the  Editorial Board there was a prima facie case proved against them  that they  were  makers  of the impugned  article.   The  learned Additional Sessions Judge further said that the  prosecution would have to lead satisfactory and cogent evidence to prove and  establish  that respondents 2, 3 and  4  were  Editors, Printers and Publishers.  The present respondents 2, 3 and 4 thereupon filed an application for revision before the  High Court  and  the  impugned order came to  be  made  on  their application.   It was held by the learned Single Judge  that the statement of the editor Madane made under S. 342 of  the Code  of  Criminal Procedure clearly showed  in  unequivocal terms  that the alleged defamatory article had been  written by him.  The newspaper according to the learned Single Judge also  showed  at  the bottom of the last page  the  name  of Madane  as  the  Editor.  Since there was  no  other  cogent evidence against the present respondents, the learned Single Judge  held  that  there was no good round  for  framing  a charge against the present respondents and they ought to  be discharged.  He made an order in that behalf. The  State  of Maharashtra which appeals by  special  leave, contends that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was wrong in treating the statement under S. 342 of the Code of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

710 Criminal Procedure of Madane as accused No. 1 as evidence in the case tending to exonerate the present respondents.   The State  also urges in addition that a presumption under S.  7 of  the  Press  and Registration of Books Act  1867  can  be raised against the Editorial Board and they can therefore be held responsible for the defamatory article.  We shall  deal with these two questions. The  first argument is correct.  No doubt under the Code  of Criminal Procedure the statement of an accused may be  taken into  consideration  in an’ inquiry or trial but it  is  not strictly  evidence in the case.  An accused, when  he  makes his  statement  under S. 342, does not depose as  a  witness because no oath is administered to him, when he is  examined under  that  section.   The recent amendment  of  the  Code, however  enables  an  accused to give evidence  on  his  own behalf  under  S.  342-A and this is only  when  an  accused offers  in writing to give evidence on his own  behalf  that his statement can be read as evidence proper. However,  the  matter is not to be decided  on  whether  the statement of Madane could be read as evidence or not but who was the editor of the newspaper.  Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act allows a presumption to be  raised under   certain  circumstances.   That  section   reads   as follows:-               "7. 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 such declaration  (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, (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 (newspaper) whereof the title               shall   correspond  with  the  title  of   the               (newspaper)  mentioned in the declaration  (or               the  editor of every portion of that issue  of               the newspaper of which a copy is produced.) The term ’editor’ is defined in the Act to mean a 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 the material s. 7 raises the  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 711 present  case the name of Madane admittedly was  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.   It may not be out of place  to  note  that Madane  admitted that he had written this article.   In  the circumstances  not  only the presumption  cannot  be,  drawn against  the  others  who had  not  declared  themselves  as editors  of the newspaper but it is also fair to leave  them

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

out  because they had no concern with the publishing of  the article  in question.  On the whole therefore the  order  of discharge  made  by the learned Single Judge appears  to  be proper in the circumstances of the case and we see no reason to interfere. The appeal fails and is dismissed. V.P.S.                            Appeal dismissed. L9 Sup.C.1/67-2 712