HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 1928 of 2008 Date: 29-04-2010 Between: Girish Sanghi and another ……….. Petitioners and The State of A.P. and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 1928 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by A-2 and A-4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.80 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur. 2. The second respondent herein, who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station, Anantapur, filed the complaint against the petitioners and A-1 and A-3 as shown in the complaint. A-1 is the staff reporter of Vaartha Telegu Daily, printed and published at Anantapur having wide circulation in Anantapur District. A-2, the second petitioner herein, is the C.M.D. and Managing Editor of A.G.A. Publications Limited, Gooty Road, Anantapur, printer and publisher of Vaartha Telugu Daily from Anantapur. A-3 is the incharge Editor of Anantapur edition of Vaartha Telugu Daily printed and published at Anantapur. A-4 is the Chief Editor of Vaartha Telugu Daily and responsible for selection of news item, who is residing at Hyderabad. The specific case of the complaint is that the Accused by publishing and circulating a news item, which is false and cause harm to her reputation, committed the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC. The news item published in the newspaper has been extracted in the complaint. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (for short ‘the Act’) is not applicable in respect of the Chief Editor of a Newspaper. Reliance is placed on K.M. MATHEW v. STATE OF KERALA [1], wherein it was held that: “For a Magistrate 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. Therefore, in absence of any positive averments against the Chief Editor, the Magistrate could direct that the complaint so far as it related to the Chief Editor could not be proceeded with.” 4. The learned counsel also placed reliance on VIVEK GOENKA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2], wherein it was held that the presumption to be drawn under Section 7 of the Act is rebuttable. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that the Chief Editor cannot be prosecuted unless and until the allegation is made against him that he has a role in selection of news item published in the newspaper, has relied on the orders of this Court in Crl.P.No.899 of 2004, dated 19-04-2006, Crl.P.No.4993 of 2006, dated 27-06-2007, Crl.P.No.4994 of 2006, dated 19-02-2010, Crl.P.No.454 of 2007, dated 19-02-2010. 6. A reading of the allegations made in the complaint does not show that the petitioners had any enmity or motive or that they intended to defame the complainant. No specific allegation is made in the complaint against the petitioners that they had any specific role in printing the news time against the complainant. However it is not in dispute that the second petitioner/A-4 is the Editor of the newspaper and his name has been printed as Editor. As per Section 7 of the Act, a legal presumption has to be drawn against the Editor, whose name has been printed as Editor, though the said presumption is rebuttable. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of the first petitioner/A-2. The proceedings against the first petitioner/A-2 in C.C.No.80 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, are hereby quashed. 8. The Criminal Petition stands dismissed in respect of the second petitioner/A-4. _________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 29-04-2010 YCR [1] 1992 CRI.L.J. 3779 (1) [2] 2007 CRI.L.J. 2194