IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5380 of 2009 DATE:29.10.2010 Between: Sri Girish Sanghi and another …… Petitioners And: The State of A.P. rep. By P.P. High Court, Hyderabad And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5380 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st petitioner/A-3 is Chairman and Managing Director of Vartha Telugu Daily newspaper. The 2nd petitioner/A-4 is editor of the said newspaper. They are accused of offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C in C.C. No.132 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Punganur, Chittoor District filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant. The complainant is Sarpanch of Pedda Panjani gram panchayat. Subject matter of the complaint is publication of three news items in Vartha daily newspaper on 14.11.2007, 20.11.2007 and 25.11.2007. On reading of copies of those three news items, it is evident that they are only true publications of allegations made by Upasarpanch and members of gram panchayat against the complainant. At this stage itself it may be noted that those three news items were published without any comment by the editorial staff of the newspaper. Except publication of the statements given by A-5 and A-8, there is no allegation of collusion etc., by A-3 and A-4. On the other hand, collusion is alleged as per the contents of the complaint for A-7 who is local reporter of the newspaper. Thus, on facts, no volition or intention or knowledge of publication of the above three news items are attributed to any of A-3 and A-4. The news items are published in Chittoor district tabloid of Vartha and not in the main edition. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-3 who is Chairman and Managing Director and A-4 who is editor of the newspaper at Hyderabad, cannot have any discretion in muchless knowledge about selection of news items being published in district or town tabloids of that paper. As pointed out earlier, there is no allegation in the complaint about A-3 and A-4 having knowledge or having participation selection these three news items particularly for publication in Chittoor district tabloid. In the absence of any such allegation in the complaint, it cannot be said that A-3 and A-4 made any imputations muchless published any imputations voluntarily or with knowledge thereof. 2) The petitioners’ counsel placing reliance on K.M.Mathew V. State of Kerala[1] and also various un-reported decisions of this Court in Crl.P.No.4994 of 2006, dated 19.02.2010, Crl.P.No.3151 of 2005, dated 19.07.2006, Crl.P.No.454 of 2007, dated 19.02.2010, Crl.P.No.4575 of 2006, dated 21.12.2006, Crl.P.No.1587 of 2005, dated 24.03.2008 and Crl.P.No.4119 of 2007, dated 12.09.2007 contended that under Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the Managing Director and Chairman of the newspaper cannot be made liable for the objectionable news items and that main editor of the newspaper at Hyderabad also cannot be legally imputated with any knowledge of selection of the news item published in district and town tabloids. As pointed out earlier, there are no allegations in the complaint imputing knowledge or volition for the 2nd petitioner/A-4 to show that he had any knowledge or participation in selection of the above three objectionable news items published in Chittoor district tabloid of Vartha newspaper. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution of the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 for offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C for publication of the above three news items, is nothing but abuse of process of law. 3) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.132 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pungunur, Chittoor District in so far as the petitioners 1 and 2/A-3 and A-4 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 29, 2010 KSH [1] AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 2206