Presumption of liability for defamation under Section 7 of Press Act applies only to designated Editors.

The respondent, a businessman in Samba, filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 of the RPC against Petitioner No. 1 (Owner/Chief Editor) and Petitioner No. 2 (Printer/Editor) of the newspaper *Dainik Jagran*.

The complaint alleged that the petitioners published a false news item branding the respondent as an "Over Ground Worker" (OGW) of militants with links to "Azahar Masood" and involvement in the Nagrota attack.

On 24.04.2017, the Trial Magistrate issued process against the petitioners.

The petitioners challenged these proceedings, contending the news was based on investigating agency reports and that Petitioner No. 1 was only responsible for general policy, while Petitioner No. 2 was the designated Editor.

1. Whether the published news item prima facie constitutes the offence of defamation under Section 499 RPC.

2. Whether the owner or "Chief Editor" of a newspaper can be held vicariously liable for defamatory content in the absence of specific allegations regarding their role in the selection of the news item.

The court applied Section 499 of the RPC, which defines defamation and requires *mens rea* in the form of intention or knowledge that an imputation will harm a reputation.

It relied on *Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India*, establishing that intention or reason to believe harm will occur is a condition precedent.

Regarding media liability, the court applied Sections 1, 5, and 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, which creates a rebuttable statutory presumption that the "Editor" is responsible for the selection of published matter.

It further cited *K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham*, holding that while the Act only recognizes the "Editor," other officials like Managing or Chief Editors can only be prosecuted if specific allegations of their involvement are pleaded.

The Court found the news item per-se defamatory as it branded the respondent a terrorist associate, which inherently lowers a person's reputation.

It rejected the petitioners' defense of lacking *mens rea*, noting that under Section 499, "knowledge" that the imputation would harm the respondent is sufficient, which was prima facie present given the gravity of the accusations.

The Court dismissed the argument that the news was in the "public domain," noting that the petitioners failed to provide evidence of such briefing by security agencies at this stage.

Regarding liability, the Court found that Petitioner No. 2 was the declared "Editor" under the 1867 Act, thus attracting the statutory presumption of responsibility.

However, for Petitioner No. 1 (Owner/Chief Editor), the Court noted a lack of specific allegations in the complaint regarding his direct role in selecting or publishing the offending item, concluding he could not be held liable merely by his status.

It held that Petitioner No. 2, as the declared Editor, must face trial as he is statutorily presumed responsible for the content.

Conversely, it held that in the absence of specific allegations of involvement in the editorial process, the owner (Petitioner No. 1) cannot be prosecuted.

The Court quashed the complaint and proceedings against Petitioner No. 1 (Sanjay Gupta) but dismissed the petition regarding Petitioner No. 2 (Abhimanyu Sharma), directing the trial to continue against him.