Appeal Nos4538 39 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 2331990 of the Hyderabad High Court in CCA Nos 54  55 of 1987
Ashok KGupta for the Appellant
Ms Suruchi Agrawal and TVSNChari for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA CJ
Special leave granted
By notifica tion dated 12th January 1973 under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as modifiednby Notification of 27th July 1978 26 acres and 26 gunthas of land located within the Hyderabad District was notified for acquisition for the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority
A similar notification was published on 14th June 1979 for acquisi tion of two acres and 29 gunthas
The Land Acquisition Officer made his award for both the properties on 10 th June 1982 fixing the market value at Rs 42000 per acre with five per cent deduction towards development cost
Being dissatisfied with the awards passed by Land Acquisition Officer a reference was sought and made under section 18 of the Act
The Claimants demanded compensation at the rate of Rs 200 per square yard
The Civil Court fixed the market value at Rs200 per sqyd
as demanded but directed deduc tion of 20 per cent towards development charges
The Land Acquisition Officer carried appeals against the escalation of compensation and the present appellants preferred cross objections
The High Court reassessed the entire evidence and came to hold
Today the position of the acquired lands is altogether different
It is common knowledge that the prices started soaring high from 1980 onwards and this part of Hyderabad namely 377 Gaddiannaram started developing from 1980 and today it is undoubtedly one of the important areas in Hyderabad
But we must consider the position as it stood in 1978 and 1979
Taking all the circumstances into account we think it reasonable to fix the market value at Rs 3 lakhs per acre
The Civil Court had given a deduction of 20 per cent towards development charges
The learned Advocate General contended that deduction should be enhanced to 33 13 per cent
We do not think that any interference is called for in this regard
The lands are abutting the highway
Evidence shows that there are roads on three sides
Hence
we maintain the deduction of 20 per cent and if so done the market value comes to Rs240000 which works out at Rs 50 per sqyd
The Trial Court has awarded Rs200 per sqyd with a deduction of 20 per cent which comes to Rs 160 per sqyd
We are unable to sustain the order of the Court below on any justifiable grounds
We accordingly set aside the judgment and decree and determine the market value at the rate of Rs50 per sqyd   It is against this deduction in compensation that the claimants have come to this court in appeal
The Collector had adopted a deduction of five per cent
The referee court adopted the deduction at 20 per cent and the High Court rejecting the claim of the Advocate General that deduction should be one third put it at one fifth
We find that the High Court did not go by the percentage of deduction
In fact according to the High Court and particu larly as the portion we have extracted above would show the appropriate market value per square yard was Rs 50 and if a 20 per cent deduction from out of Rs 3 lakhs per acre was accepted it worked out that way
The Judgment of the High Court gives us the impression that in fixing the compensa tion
the High Court did not go by the percentage of deduc tion but kept in view the market value of the land at the time of the notification under section 41 of the Act
There is clear material and the High Court has accepted it that price went up in the area after 1980
The notifications are within a range of a year or two from that time
There fore the valuation after 1980 is not the guideline
Having looked into the material accepted by the High Court we are not in a position to disturb the finding recorded by the High Court
The appeals are accordingly dismissed
No costs
RP Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The appellant the Chief Editor of a leading daily newspaper was arrayed as an accused in the complaint case initated by the respondent no2 an advocate who was ag grieved by a news item published in the newspaper before the Additional Judicial Magistrate sections 500 and 34 IPC
The Magistrate issued summons to the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty
The appellant requested the Magis trate to drop the proceedings against him before the evi dence was recorded contending that there was no averment in the complaint that he had perused the material or edited before its publications or that it was published with his knowledge or consent
The Magistrate dropped the proceedings against the appel lant
The revision moved by the complainant was allowed by the 365 High Court
This appeal has been filed by special leave against the 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 indicates that the proceedings before the Magis trate 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 ac cused in the commission of the crime it is implied that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed against the ac cused
368 A C 2
It is open to the accused to plead before the Magis trate that the process against him ought not to have been issucd
Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satis fied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried
It is his judicial discrction
368 C D 3
No specific provision required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings or rescind the process
The order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judg ment
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 4
Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 has no applicability for a person who is simply named as Chief Editor  The presumption under Section7 is only against the person whose name is printed as Editor  as required under Section 51
There is a mandato ry though rebuttable presumption that the person whose name is printed as editor  is the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produccd
The Act does not recognize any other legal entity for raising the presumption
Even if the name of the Chief Editor is printed in the newspaper there is no Presumption against him under Section 7 of the Act
368 E G 5
No person should be tried without a prima ficie case
For a Magistrate to take congnizance of the offence as against the Chief 366 Editor there must be positive averments in the complaint of knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter
The complaint in the instant case does not contain any such allegation
In the absence of such allegation the Magis trate was justified in directing that the complaint so far as it relates to the Chief Editor could not be proceeded with
369 B A State of Maharashtra vs Dr RB Chowdhaty  Ors   DP Mishra vs Kamal Narain Sharma  Ors 1971 3 SCR 257 Nara Singh Charan Mohanty vs Suren dra Mohantv  and Haji CHMohammad Koya vs TK SMAMuthukoya   referred to