LexGAMBHIRSINH R. DEKARE versus FALGUNBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 719 GAMBHIRSINH R. DEKARE v. FALGUNBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 2013) MARCH 11, 2013 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Defamatory news item - In local edition of a newspaper - Complaint against C Editor and Resident Editor alleging defamation - Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against both the accused - Editor sought quashing of the complaint on the ground that he was not aware of offending news item as he was stationed at different place - High Court quashed D the complaint against the Editor - Held: High Court quashed the prosecution on erroneous assumption of fact - In view of the scheme of Press and Registration of Books Act and in view of presumption provided u/s. 7 thereof, Editor is responsible for publication of a news item - Press and E Registration of Books Act, 1867 - s. 7. A news item was published in a newspaper alleging illicit rlation of the appellant with a lady. Appellant filed a complaint against Accused Nos.1 and 2 who were Resident Editor and Editor of the Newspaper respectively. Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/ss. 500, 501, 502, 506, 507 and 114 IPC and issued process against both the accused. F Accused-respondent No.1 (the Editor) filed G application seeking quashing of the complaint on the ground that he was the Editor of the Newspaper and stationed at Ahmedabad and the offending news item was published in the Vadodara Edition of the newspaper 719 H 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R. A of which accused No.1 was the resident Editor. Thus he was not aware of the publication of the offending news item. High Court quashed the complaint and process against the accused-respondent No.1. Hence the instant appeal by the complainant. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Complainant had specifically averred in the complaint that the news item was printed in the newspaper as per the instructions and directions of the C accused persons. The complainant had specifically alleged that accused nos. 1 and 2 deliberately published the offending news and it was within their knowledge. At this stage, it is impermissible to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation and one has to proceed on D a footing that the allegation made is true. Hence, the conclusion reached by the High Court that "there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that the petitioner herein was aware of the offending news item being published or that he had any role to play in the selection E of such item for publication" is palpably wrong. Hence, the High Court has quashed the prosecution on an erroneous assumption of fact which renders its order illegal. [Para 12] [725-F-H; 726-A-B] 2. A news item has the potentiality of bringing F doom's day for an individual. The Editor controls the selection of the matter that is published. Therefore, he has to keep a careful eye on the selection. Blue-penciling of news articles by any one other than the Editor is not welcome in a democratic polity. Editors have to take G responsibility of everything they publish and to maintain the integrity of published record. The scheme and scope of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 also brings forward the same conclusion. From the scheme of the Act, it is evident that it is the Editor who controls the H selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. GAMBHIRSINH R. DEKARE v. FALGUNBHAI CHIMANBHAI 721 PATEL Further, every copy of the newspaper is required to A contain the names of the owner and the Editor and once the name of the Editor is shown, he shall be held responsible in any civil and criminal proceeding. Further, in view of the interpretation clause, the presumption would be that he was the person who controlled the B selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper. However, this presumption u/s.7 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption and it would be deemed a sufficient evidence unless the contrary is proved. [Paras 14, 15 and 18] [726-E-F, H; 728-D-F] c K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham (2002) 6 SCC 670: 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 662 - relied on. K.M. Mathew v. State of Kera/a (1992) 1 SCC 217: 1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 364; Ada/at Prasad v. Roop/al Jindal (2004) D 7 sec 338 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 662 relied on 1991 (2) Suppl. S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.