HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.454 OF 2007 Date:19.02.2010 Between: Girish Sanghi …..Petitioner And: State of AP, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.454 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 1st accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.83 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ongole relating to offences punishable under Sections 500, 501(b) and 506 I.P.C. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. He filed private complaint against A-1 and A-2 in the lower court. A-1 is described as Chief Editor of Vaartha daily news paper. A-2 is described as Staff Reporter in Vaartha daily. It is alleged that on 24.09.2003, there was publication of a news item in district edition of Vaartha under the caption of mis-appropriation of Rs.12.96 crores by mixing water in milk and that in the said news item, the complainant was mentioned as Kingpin along with some other workers who participating in that scam. The complainant worked as Processing Supervisor in Prakasham District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-operative Union Limited, Ongole. Some other allegations were also made in the said news item on this subject. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel relying upon Haji C. H. Mohammad Koya v. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya[1] and K.M.Mathew v. State of Kerala[2] of the Supreme Court that Chief Editor of a daily news paper is not included in the category of editor contemplated under Section 1(1) of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 (in short, the Act) and that no presumption arises under Section 7 of the Act and that in the absence of any averments against the Chief Editor about motive, in order to take cognizance of the offence as against the Chief Editor, there must be positive averments in the complaint of knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter to him. It is further contended that there is no averment in the complaint on this aspect as against the petitioner/A-1. Except describing A-1 as Chief Editor, there is no averment in the complaint that the objectionable or the alleged defamatory news item was published with the knowledge of A-1 or that A-1 participated in selection of publishing that news item in Prakasham District tabloid of Vaartha on that day. Even though it was specifically mentioned in the complaint that A-2 (news reporter) intentionally published the said news item, there is no similar averment in so far as A-1 is concerned. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A-1 is not a Chief Editor and that he is only Managing Director of the company publishing the news paper and that he has nothing to do with Editorial Board or in selection of news items to be published in Vaartha daily news paper or in any district tabloids thereof. In view of the above case law and lack of averments in the complaint as against A-1, this Court is of the opinion that complaint filed in the lower court against A-1 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.83 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ongole in so far as the petitioner/A-1 is concerned. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:19.02.2010. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.454 OF 2007 Date:19.02.2010 Gk. [1] AIR 1979 Supreme Court 154 [2] (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 217