K.M. MATHEW ETC. versus K.A. ABRAHAM AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 23-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.M. MA THEW ETC. 
v. 
K.A. ABRAHAM AND ORS. ETC. 
AUGUST 23, 2002. 
B 
[U.C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867-Section 7-Complaint against 
Managing Editor, Chief Editor and Resident Editor of newspaper publications-
C Publication of defamatory matter within their knowledge alleged-Magistrate 
taking cognizance and issuing summons-Appellants filing petitions for 
quashing proceedings on the ground that Editor whose name printed in such 
publication alone can be prosecuted-High Court dismissing the petition-On 
appeal held, there is no statutory immunity against the appellants who had 
control over such publication-Thus there is no convincing reason to quash 
D criminal proceedings initiatedagainst appellants-Penal Code, 1860, Sections 
319 and 500-Code of Criminal Procedure, I 97 3, Section 482. 
Criminal complaints were filed against appellants who are either 
Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor of the Newspapers 
published by them. It was alleged that defamatory matter was published 
E in appellant's Newspaper, which was within their knowledge and thus they 
committed offence of defamation. Magistrate took cognizance and issued 
summons. Appellants filed petitions for quashing the proceedings on the 
ground that they were not liable to be prosecuted for the offence of 
defamation for the alleged libellous publication as they were not the 
F Editors of such publications. High Court dismissed the petitions. Hence 
these appeals. 
Appellants contended that they were not shown as Editors in the 
publications, their names were printed as either Chief Editor, Managing 
Editor or Resident Editor and not as Editor. Thus in view of Section 7 of 
G the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 there cannot be any prima 
facie case against them and only the Editor whose name is printed in such 
publications can be prosecuted. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
662 
K.M. MA THEW v. K.A. ABRAHAM 
663 
HELD: I. The provisions contained in the Press and Registration of A 
Books Act, 1867 shows that there would be a presumption against the 
Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper to the effect that he is the 
Editor of such publication and that he is responsible for selecting the 
matter for publication. Though, a similar presumption cannot be drawn 
against the Chief Editor, Resident Editor or Managing Editor, 
nevertheless, the complainant can still allege and prove that they had B 
knowledge and they were responsible for the publication of the defamatory 
news item. Even the presumption under Section 7 of the Act is a rebuttable 
presumption and the same could be proved otherwise, which by itself 
indicates that somebody other than the Editor can also be held responsible 
for selecting the matter for publication in a newspaper. (669-D, E] 
C 
2.1. There is no statutory immunity against Managing Editor, 
Resident Editor or Chief Editor against any prosecution for the alleged 
publication of any matter in the newspaper over which these persons 
. exercise control. [667-G, HJ 
2.2. In the instant case, the 'Editor' had not come forward and 
pleaded guilty to the effect that he was the person responsible for selecting 
D 
the alleged defamatory matter published. It is a matter of evidence in each 
case. If the complaint is allowed to proceed only against 'Editor' whose 
name is printed in the newspaper against whom there is a statutory 
presumption under Section 7 of the Act, and in case such 'Editor' succeeds E 
in proving that he was not the 'Editor' having control over the selection 
of the alleged libellous matter published in the newspaper, the complainant 
would be left without any remedy to redress his grievance against the real 
culprit. The powers are vested in the Court under Section 319 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, to proceed against other persons appearing to be F 
guilty of offence but such powers are circumscribed by limitations. Thus 
there are no convincing reasons to quash the proceedings initiated against 
appellants and the proceedings initiated be continued in accordance with 
law. [670-E-H] 
State of Maharshtra v. Dr. R.B. Chowdhary and Ors., (1967) 3 SCR G 
708; Haji CH. Mohammad Kaya v. T.K.S. MA. Muthukoya, [1979] I SCR 
664; K.M Mathew v. State of Kera/a and Anr., (1992] I SCC 217, 
distinguished. 
State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawal/a, [1996] 8 SCC 164 and Santosh 
De and Anr. v. Archna Gupta and Ors., (1994[ 2 SCC 420, referred 

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