HAJI C.H. MOHAMMAD KOYA versus T. K. S. M. A. MUTHUKOYA

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 664 · Decided: 12-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
664 
HAJJ C.H. MOHAMMAD KOYA 
v. 
T. K. S. M. A. MUTHUKOYA 
September 12, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHiNGHAL, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act 1951-Sec. 123(3)(3A)-Publication of 
n1aterial pron1oting hatr'ed between citizens-Seeking votes on religious and 
communal grounds-Standard of proof-Beyond reasonable doubt of preponder~ 
ance of probabilities-What constitute.s<--How to be proved. 
Press and Registration of Books Act 1861-Sec. 7-Presun1ption-Meaning 
of Editor-Obiecl of the Act. 
In the General Election to the ·Legislative Assembly of Kerala in March 
1977 the petitioner and the appellant were the contesting candidates from 
Malappuram constituency. 
The Appellant was declared elected by polling 
56,276 votes defeating the petitioner who secured 39,362 votes. The petitioner 
filed an election petition alleging that the appellant had committed various 
corrupt practices falling within the ambit of section 123(3)<(3A) and (4) of the 
Representation of People Act 1951. 
The main allegation was that the appel-
lant was the Chief Editor of Malayalam daily paper called 'Chandrika' which 
was the official organ of the Muslim League. 
According to the petitioner the 
paper contained articles, extracts of speeches and cartoons which 
tended 
to 
ask the muslims to vote for the appellant on religious and communal grounds 
and also pron1ted ill-will and hatred between two classes of citizens, namely, 
the Janasangh and the Muslim. League. 
At the hearing, the petitioner con-
fined his case only to the corrupt practices alleged by him under section 
123(3A). 
The petition was contested by the appellant. 
He took the stand 
that he made no speech which offended section 123(3A) of the Act, nor was 
he aware of any of the offending articles or cartoons published in Chandrika 
prior to the election. 
He denied that he was an editor of Chandrika and 
admitted that he was the Chief Editor and, that too, only in name.1 
He 
denied that he had to do any thing with the editorial work of Chandrika 
or the publication of the speeches. The High Court held that the petition was 
maintainable. According to the High Court, the appellant was really the editor 
of the paper and the presumption under section 7 of the Press and Registration 
of Books Act 1867 would apply. 
Allowing the appeal the Court, 
llELD : The object of the Press Act is to regulate pnnting presses and 
newspapers in order to preserve copies of newspapers and books. 
In order 
to avoid multiplicity 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 1natters to be published in the paper so that any person 
aggrieved may sue only the person so named under the provisions of Press 
Act and a litigant is relieved from the necessity of making a fishing or roving 
enquiry. 
Under section 1(1) the Editor is defined to mean the person who 
controls the selection of the matter that is to be published in a ne\11spaper. 
Section 5 ( 1) requires t:p.at ..every copy of every newspaper shall contain the 
names of the O\\'ner and editor, printed clearly on such copies and also the 
~ 
' 
.1 
\ 
\ 
MOHD. KOYA V. MUTHUKOYA 
665 
<late of the publication. 
Section 8A provides that where any person's namo 
has appeared as an editor in a newspaper, alth9ugh he was not an editor, 
he shall, Y:ithin two weeks of his becoming aware that his name has been so 
published,, appear before a magistrate and make a declaration that he has 
been incorrectly published. 
In the present case, the following are the 
facts 
1. That the issues of Chandrika shown to us clearly and unmis-
takably mention the name of Aboobaket as the printer, publisher 
and editor of Chandrika and does. not mention the appellant 
as the Editor of Chandrika. 
The appellant is merely shown as 
the Chief Editor but this is an officer which is not at all con-
templated by. the Press Act. 
A 
• 
2. That if the appellant was really the editor of the paper then 
P.W. 2 Aboobaker ought to have resorted to section 8(A) to 
C 
correct the mistake in the paper where his name was shown as 
the editor but no such thing has been done. On. the other hand, 
P.\\1• 2 Aboobaker tacitly and clearly admits that he is the 
editor of the paper. 
3. That the petitioner has not at all pleaded in his petition the 
t nature of the duties performed o.r responsibilities shouldered by 
D 
the 
appellant as Ch

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