A newspaper proprietor cannot be prosecuted for defamation solely on the basis of ownership.

In brief

The question

Whether the proprietor or owner of a newspaper can be prosecuted for criminal defamation merely by reason of ownership, when the statutory records identify other persons as the printer, publisher and editor?

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner, being merely the proprietor/owner and not the printer, publisher or editor of the newspaper, could not prima facie be prosecuted for the alleged defamatory publication on the basis of ownership alone.

It also directed

Exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed the cognizance order dated 2 August 2019, the subsequent order dated 19 September 2023, and the entire criminal proceeding in C.R. Case No. 154/2019 insofar as it concerned Jayanta Baruah.

The criminal petition was accordingly allowed.

01Facts

Respondent No. 2, Anupam Choudhury, filed a complaint alleging that news reports published on 30 and 31 May 2019 falsely implicated him in irregularities concerning public construction projects and damaged his reputation.

p. 2

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, took cognizance of offences under Sections 500/34 IPC by order dated 2 August 2019 in C.R. Case No. 154/2019.

p. 2

The petitioner, Jayanta Baruah, sought dropping of the proceedings, contending that he was merely the proprietor/owner of Asomiya Pratidin and Sadhin Printers, and was neither the editor nor the printer or publisher of the relevant newspaper.

pp. 2–3

The Magistrate rejected the application, observing that it lacked jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

p. 2

The newspaper record produced before the High Court showed that Jatindro Chowdhury was the printer and publisher, Nitab Borah was the editor, and Jayanta Baruah was identified only as the owner of the newspaper.

p. 6

02Issues

i.Whether the proprietor or owner of a newspaper can be prosecuted for criminal defamation merely by reason of ownership, when the statutory records identify other persons as the printer, publisher and editor?

pp. 5–7

ii.Whether the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance and continuing the proceedings against the petitioner without considering the newspaper’s statutory ownership and publication particulars?

pp. 6–8

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.

p. 3

Section 1 defines an “editor” as the person controlling the selection of matter published in a newspaper.

p. 3

Sections 3 and 5 require disclosure of the printer, publisher, owner and editor, and prescribe declarations by the printer and publisher.

pp. 3–5

Under Section 7, the declaration or the newspaper containing the editor’s name constitutes prima facie evidence that the named person is the printer, publisher or editor, as applicable; the statutory presumption does not extend merely to the proprietor or owner.

pp. 5–6

The Court also applied Section 482 Cr.P.C. concerning the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings and relied on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, which holds that summoning an accused is a serious matter and requires the Magistrate to scrutinise the allegations and supporting evidence to determine whether a prima facie offence is made out.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 500 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court distinguished ownership from the statutory roles of printer, publisher and editor.

pp. 5–6

Section 7 permits a presumption of responsibility against the persons named in the relevant declaration or, in the case of the editor, against the person named as editor in the newspaper.

pp. 5–6

The newspaper statement produced by the complainant itself identified Jatindro Chowdhury as printer and publisher and Nitab Borah as editor, while describing Jayanta Baruah only as the owner.

p. 6

Since no specific material showed that the petitioner selected, edited, printed or published the allegedly defamatory item, the Court held that ownership alone could not establish criminal liability for defamation.

pp. 6–7

The Magistrate’s failure to consider this document before taking cognizance and while rejecting the petitioner’s application rendered the cognizance order legally unsustainable.

pp. 7–8