STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus DR. R. B. CHOWDHARY & 2 ORS.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 19-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

708 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
DR. R. B. CHOWDHARY & 2 ORS. 
April 19, 1967 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAJDIALJNGAM, JJ.] 
Press and Registration of Book.< Act (25 of 1967), s. 7-"Editor", 
,.,,/Jo is_:_When presiunplion under the sectt'on could he drawn. 
The respondents were members of the Editorial Board of a new.· 
paper. One M, who had made a declaration 
under s. 5 of the Press 
and Registration of Books Act, 1867, that he was the editor, printer and 
publisher of the newspaper, was shown in the newspaper also as its editor. 
A complaint was filed again'! M and the respondents that they published 
a defamatory article in the newspaper. 
The High Court, in revision, held 
that the respondents should be discharged, because, M had admitted in 
his statement under s. 342, Cr. P.C., that he wrote the article and be· 
cause, there was no cogent evidence against the 
·respondents that they 
were the editors of the newspaper. 
Jn appeal by the State to this Court, 
HELD : (i) Though the statement of M under s. 342 Cr. P.C. was 
npt evidence j~ favour of the respondents, there was no evidence to !\how 
that they had any concern with the publishing of the article. '17 If> B; 
711 CJ 
(ii) Since M alone was sho"!n to be the editor in the declaration under 
'· , 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, and in the new•pupcr 
it could be presumed under s. 7 that M was responsible for the selccuon 
of the material published, and his admission that ho 
wrote the 
ar.iclc 
could be taken into consideration against hirµ. 
But no such pre•umption 
c~1uld be drawn ngain.<t the ·respondents nn<l they were rightly <li•charg-
cd. [711 BJ. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE J!IRISD!CTION : 
Criminal Appeal No. 
!'I of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dat~d 
April I 5, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revhion 
Application No. I 7 of 1964. 
H. R. Khanna, S. P. Nayyar for R. N. Sachthey, for the appel-
lant. 
S. C. Agarwal, for the respondent. 
The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, .l. 
This is an appeal against an order of a 
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay discharging 
the respondents in a criminal case in which they were made 
accused with one Sudhakar Gopal Madane. 
The matter arises in this way. 
The Public Prosecutor, We't 
Khandesh, Dhulia with the previous sanction of the State 
Government filed a complaint against. four 
pe~sons who are 
members of the Editorial Board of a Maharath1 Weekly named 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
JI 
MAHARASHTRA v. CHOWDHARY (Hidayatu//ah, J.) 
709 
"'Maharashtra", under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 
The 
complaint was that in an issue of the Maharashtra dated October 
30, 1959, they had published an article which tended to defame 
one M. A. Dcshmukh, I.A.S., Cdllector and District Magistrate, 
West Khandesh in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his 
public functions. 
We need not go into the facts of that article 
or the gravamen of the charge of defamation. This Weekly Maha-
rashtra is 
registered as 
a newspaper and a declaration 
in Form I under Art. 3 of the Press and Registration of 
Books Act, 1867 has been filed by Sudhakar Gopal Madane 
who has described himself in the declaration as the editor, 
printer and publisher of the newspaper. The particular copy of 
the Maharashtra in which the alleged defamatory article appear-
ed bore· the name of Madane as the editor, printer and publisher 
of the newspaper. 
It also 
showed on the front 
page the 
Editorial Board consisting of the three respondents and Madane 
the Editor. 
The short question which has arisen in the present 
matter is whether the Members of the Editorial Board other than 
the Editor can be prosecuted for the defamatory article. 
The Additional Sessions Judge Dhulia, who is trying the 
case, held by an order dated October 26, 1963, that the res-
pondents 2, 3 and 4 could be charged with the Editor because 
they were Members of the Editorial Board. He held that there 
was no evidence so far adduced by the prosecution to establish 
that they were the Editors, Printers and Publishers of the 
Weekly yet in view of the admissions of the respondents that 
they were Members of the Editorial Board there was a prima 
facie case proved against them that they were makers of the 
impugned article. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further 
said that the prosecution would have to lead satisfactory and 
cogent evidence to prove and establish that r

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