LexK.M. MATHEW versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A K.M. MATHEW V. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. NOVEMBER 19,1991 B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 500, 34-Charges under-Complaint Case-No prima facie_ case against Chief Editor-:-Proceedings to be dropped. C Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3-Section 204-Complaint case-Absence of allegation involving accused in the commission of the offence-Magistrate cannot t~easons indicated. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 204-Complaint c~e-Magistrate 's power to drop proceedings-Nature and scope of-Order D issuing process-Nature of E F G H Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 204-Complaint case against Chief Editor-Taking cognizance of offence by Magistrate--Requirements. Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867-Section 7-Corrtplaint case against Chief Editor-Presumption under-Applicability of The appellant-the Chief Editor of a leading daily newspaper was arrayed as an accused in the complaint case initated by the respondent no.2, an advocate, who was aggrieved by a news 'item published in the newspaper before the Additional "Judicial Magis- trate, u/ss. 500 and 34 l.P.C. The Magistrate issued summons to the accused-appellant, who pleaded nnt guilty. The appetbmt requested the Magistrate to drop the proceedings against him, before the ~vidence was recorded, con- tending that .there was no averment in the complaint that he bad p.erused the material or edited before its publications or that it was published with bis knowledge or consent. The Magistrate dropped the prqceedings against the appellant. The revision, moved by the complainant was allowed by the 364 MATHEW v. STATE 365 High· Court. This appeal bas been filed by special leave against the A order of the High Court. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD : 1. The power to drop proceedings against the accused cannot be denied to the Magistrate. Section 204 of the Code indi- cates tha.t the proceedings before the Magistrate commences upon taking cognizance of the offence and the issue of summons to the accused. When the accused enters appearance in response to the summons, the Magistrate has to take proceedings under Chapter XX of the .Code. But the need to try the accused arises when there is allegation· in the complaint that the accused has committed the crime. If there is no allegation in the complaint involving the accused in the commission of the crime, it is implied that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed against the accused. (368 A-CJ 2. It is open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsid- eration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the ac- cused could be tried. It is his judicial discretion. [368 C-D] 3. No specific provision required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The order issuing the proc- ess is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of its does not disclose any offence against the accused. [368 D-E] B c D E 4. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 bas no applicability for a person who is simply named as 'Chief F Editor'. The presumption under Section 7 is only against the person whose name is printed as 'Editor' as required under Section 5(1). There is a mandatory (though rebuttable) presumption that the per- son whose name is printed as 'editor' is the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced. The Act does not recognize any other legal entity for raising the .presump- tfon. Even if the name of the Chief Editor is printed in the newspa- per, there is no presumption against him under Section 7 of the Act. [368 E-G] G S. No person should be tried without a prima facie case. For a Magistrate to take congnizance of the offence as against the Chief H 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A Editor, there must be positive averments in the complaint of knowl- edge of the objectionable character of the matter. The complaint _in the instant case does not cont .. in any such allegation. In the absence of such allegation, the Magistrate was justified in directing that· the complaint so far as it relates to the Chief Edito
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.