D. P. MISHRA versus KAMAL NARAIN SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 18-12-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
11 
257 
D. P. MISHRA 
v. 
KAMAL NARAIN SHARMA & ORS. 
December 18, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, C.J., K. s. HEGDE AND A. N. GR6VER, JJ.] 
Representation of t/je People Act, 1951, s. 98-Proceedings for 'naming' 
person responsible for corrupt practice-Finding given by High Court-
Circumstances in which Supreme Court would. reconsider. 
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, s. ?-Person's name printed 
as Pditor in paper and recorded with Registrar-If responsible for every-
thing printed in paper-Presumption as to--Jf can be rebutted. 
At the time of dismissing an appeal by the appellant against the finding 
by the High Court that the appellant. was guilty of a corrupt practice 
under s. 123(4) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, the 
Supreme Court directed that S an editor, publisher and printer of a daily 
newspaper, Mahakoshal which published the. offending material "relevant 
to the personal character or conduct ot one of the candidates, should be 
given a notice to show cause why he should not be named under s. 98. 
At the hearing pursuant to the notice issued by the High Court, S 
admitted that he was the registered printer, publisher and editor of the 
newspaper in the record of the Press Register at the relevant time and that 
the offending material was published-1n the Mahakoshal; but he claimed 
that it was so printed without his knowledge, that he had left the entire 
management of the newspaper 
with T, and did not himself come to 
learn about the publication until after the election petition was filed. 
After hearing further evidence, the High Court accepted the plea set up 
by s. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of two inter-
veners who had undertaken the defence of the appeal that S was liable 
to be named under s. 98, (i) in view of the provisions of section 7 of 
the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and the fact that S was 
the registered printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper; (ii) because 
in certain proceedings taken in the High Court for cummitting the editor 
of the same newspaper for contempt of court for publishing certain 
scurrilous matte: concernin~ a Civil Judge in 1962. S had admjtted his 
responsibility for the publication and tendered an apology; (iii) because 
on October 24, 1963, the first respondent had addressed a letter to S 
inviting his attention to the publication of ti)~ offending matter in. April-
May, 1963, which was the subject matter of the election petition, requir-
ing him to disclose the identity of the writer within three days and stat-
ing that otherwise S would be, assumed to be the author of the publication; 
S had no reply to the said letter. 
HELD : The order passed by the High Qlurt must be confirmed. 
(i) Section 7 raises a presumption that a person whose name is printed 
in a copy of the newspaper is the editor of every portion of that issue. 
However, this presumption may be rebutted bv evidence. In a charge 
under s. 123 ( 4) of the Representation of the People Act, the presump-
tion under s. 7 would come with ~ter or less force, according to the 
circumstances, to tho aid of a P"™'" claiming ··tlranhe editor-was res-
3-L807S"p.Cl;71 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 3 S.C.R. 
ponsible for the publication and that the publlcation was to the knowledge 
A 
of the editor. The High Court had accepted the testimony of S and T 
to the effect that T was in sole management of the newspaper at the rele-
vant time and no reason was shown why this Court should not agree with 
~ 
this conclusion .. Granting that there was close association between the 
appellant and_ S, and even granting that Mahakoshal was exclusively 
carrying on propaganda on behalf of the appellant, unless there 
was 
evidence to prove the S had either authorised the publication of the offend-
B 
ing matter, or had undertaken to be responsible for all. the publications 
made in the Mahakoshal, no inference that the offending publications 
were made to the knowl"iJge and with the consent of S may be raised. 
[262 E-G; 264 EJ 
A proceeding f<>r naming a person who is found responsible for publi-
cation of offendLng matter is in the nature of a quasi-criminal proceeding, 
In an appeal ~gainst the order of the High Court qolding on appreciation 
of evidence that a person charged before the High Court is not proved 
to be guilty of a corrupt practice, this Court does not normally proceed 
to reappraise the evidence, unless the High .Court

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.