1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.APPLICATION NO.3017 OF 2007 (KU.SHOBHA WAMANRAOJI KHODKE VS. MUKUND P. KULKARNI) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for applicant. Shri S. Ghate, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : OCTOBER 17, 2008. 1. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the revisional judgment rendered by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, whereby the learned Judge set aside the order issuing process for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code against respondent No.1 Mukund Prabhakarrao Kulkarni, Editor of the newspaper known as “Navrashtra”. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, who alleges that he was defamed by the news item which appeared in daily 'Navrashtra' of which respondent Mukund was Chief 2 Editor. The allegations against respondent Mukund in para 7 of the complaint are as under : “.... It is also to submit here that the accused no.2 and 4, without verifying the truth, published the said report, which is false and even to the knowledge of all accused and the said news items is published and printed only with a view to malign the image of complainant in the society. ....” 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying on the judgment of this Court in Vijay Jawaharlalji Darda Vs. Laxmikanth C. Gupta, reported at 2005 CRI.L.J. 1886 held that necessary knowledge about falsity of news item could not be attributed to the Chief Editor and, therefore, process against him had to be quashed. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the allegations in para 7 of the complaint are sufficient to attract the liability of respondent No.1 Mukund and that where he was or was not privy to the act of publication of malicious news item can only be decided after taking evidence at the trial. Mere allegation, that respondent Mukund Kulkarni, without verifying the truth, published the news item, would not be equal to the allegations that respondent Mukund 3 had knowledge that the item was false and that he published it with a view to malign the image of the complainant. It cannot be inferred that it was an intentional act of a Chief Editor of a newspaper to publish the news maliciously in order to defame a person, unless it is also alleged that the Chief Editor had the means of knowing that the item was false and yet with the intention to malign the complainant he gave a go ahead for its publication. It would be impossible for a Chief Editor to verify truth of every news item before the copy goes to press. 4. As for the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Magistrate was not required to give reasons while issuing process, the same is correct and even the Apex Court has so held in UP Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd., reported at 2000 CRI.L.J. 1799 on which the learned counsel placed reliance. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, does not seem to have been influenced solely by the absence of reasons in rendering the impugned judgment, therefore, that aspect is not material. 4 5. In view of this, no case for invocation of inherent powers of this Court is made out. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.