Mahinder Mohan Gupta v. NCT of Delhi & Anr.

9. l(areena D/o l(islran La, R/o F-40, Jawahar Bagh, Shal<arpur, Laxmi Nagar, Dellri

10. Tabassum D/o Siddharth Bhardwaj R/o 2oo, Lodhi Road ComPlex, New Delhi. 11, Arrjali D/o Surender Yadav R/o A-703, Seventh 'Floor, l(anchanjunga Apartment Dwarka, New Dellr i l,2. Maya sirrgh w/o Rajender sirrglr R/o l-Block, Saurablr Vihar, Jaitpur, Badarpur, New Delhi.

13. Reenu Saxena, W/o Sarab Saxena, R/o 727, Sector 19, Pocl<et 111 Dwarl<a, New Delhi' Tlrese girls with tlreir gestures and tallcs were instigating the customers for the wrong cleeds arrd tlre customers were getting instigated to involve in wrong deeds. Apart from us, Shri.L I.-.t Crl.M.C.No.ZLn/07 & conn.matters '. I \ Ramesh Balrl, S/o Slrri Arnar Nailr, R/o 1692 Arya Samaj Road, l(arol Baglr, Dellri and Slrri Anil l(umar S/o, Preetam l(unrar R/o C-34, Shalcti Nagar, Dellri lrad also come to see ilre dance and they were also slrocked and angry to see the slrow witlr about 50 to 60 audience who were also watching tlre show. Out of all these audience, most of them were also irrstigatecl with the same vulgar feelings as we were. In this regard, police investigation slrall be carriecl out against Shri Babbu l(alra wlrose full name is Man Mohan l(alra S/o Slrri Kislran Lal l(alra and I have lranded over tlre two ticlcets wlrose numbers I have already given you alorrg with the two" t500 denorninatiorr notes. Statenrerrt lreard and it is correct. "

3. An endorsement was made beneath the * a statenrent wlric.h reads as under:- "ACP lrad tlre information 'of Rajdoot Hotel that the owner Babbu l(alra and Prem l(alra are running a dance Bar in tlre Hotel where they serve drinl<s and girls from different cities of lrrdia perform obscene dances. Where these girls witlr tlreir obscene gestures instigate tlre. customers. This information was brought to tlre. lcnowledge and secretly it was investigated and it was found to be correct, We tlre Raiding I'eam alorrgwitlr ACP, lnspector Jeet Sirrglr Special Team, lnspector Raj Vir Singlr, AATS/Crime Branch and Staff Sl Raj l(ltnrar, Sl Bhagwati. Prasad, Sl Buddlr Parkash, ASI Ravinder Const' Sanjay l(airr. Special Team Sl Parrlcaj Yadav, Sl Selrdev Rana, HC Bheerl Singlr, HC Tanveer, AATS Staff, Sl Surinder Rana, ASI Sameer Singh, Const. Pardeep Hudda, Const'Sat Pal, Lady Sl Pushap Yadav and Lady Const'l(avita, 48, Crime Branch, Lady Corrst.Mukeslr No.303 DRP, Lady Corrst.Anita No.2 947lCrime. This team had already been called and instructed to develop on Crl.M.C.No. 2LLI/07 & conn.matters Page[7] of 2i' \ rj J -.! t[7] ttre information and the Police Statiorr of the area Jangpura Mathura Road wds;informed about it and tlre team was present there. The secret informer informed that at this time also there are obscene dances/Cabra is goirrg on in the Hotel Rajdoot. Orr this informatiorr one Raiding Party alongwitlr a Staff and Rujiu l(unrar Chaudhary along with Dilip l(umamr was prepared and the instructions were given to botlr the.witr-resses and were also handed over two notes of denonrination of t500/- eaclr and were instructed to go into tlre Rajdoot Hotel and watclr the dance and were furtlrer instructed that if any obscene activities are taking place'tlten witness Dilip Kumar would come out and would make the irrstructed indication. Thereafter, all of us also took positiorr around Rajdoot t-lotel. At about

11.30 PM, otr tlre irrdication given by tlre Witness Dilip l(unrar the whole Raidirrg Party went into Bar Hall of tlre Rajdoot Hotel i.e. Eldorado Restaurant where 13 girls who were dancing turn by turn on the stage and were inalcing obscene gestures to instigate the people sitting.in the Bar iloo't[1] ancl Babbu l(alra w5o was also irrstigating them to perform suclr obscene gestures were talcen under custody. The conlplainant Rajeev l(unrar chaudhary s/o Ram Veer singh recorded lris statement and case uls 2941T09134 lPc and u/s B of ITP Act was registered. Tlrat case rTlay be registered." 4, The po|ice released a press release,.which reads aS under:- "With tlre arrest of 13 bar girls caught while pertornring obscene, sex provocative' semi-nude iloor. dan-ing shows at Rajdoot Hotel' Matlrura noaO, last nigl-'t, sleuths oi crime branch Delhi Police have beerr able to smash a well organized' scandalous racl<et being rurr by the owners of the said lrotel wlrere the dJnce bar girls from Bombay Ou,.."openlyenticed/allurethevisitingguestsfor Crl. M.C. N o. zLlll 07 & conn'nratters sexual acts while dressed in alluring and scanty dresses. One of the partners of said hotel namely 'Manmolran @ Babbu l(alra has also been arrested for abetting, aiding these dance bar girls to achieve tlreir illegal designs. An infornration was received at.r,r" branclr that tlre owners of Rajdoot Hotel are flourislring there business by organizing floor dance slrows where dance girls allure customers through obscene gestures, words, actions, wilfully exposing their person to attract the attention of o)r,i spectators/guests for the purpose of prostitution. For this purpose tlre hoteliers facilitates tlrem by provid ing a ccom modation at their hotel for carrying out their illegal, nefarious and antisocial activities in the garb of floor dance playing sexy songs/tunes. The lrotel management charge each guest <500. T[is information was developed by the officers of Anti Robbery cell crime branch, specifically entrusted witlr this tasl<. orr verification tlrrough secret sources the information was found to be authentic. The hotel owners used extra ordinary vigilant system using Hi-tech security/monitoring gJdgets ihstalled at t5e various locatiorrs of hotel [o Ward off any checks on their anti social activities. They lrave hired a number of nrusclemen, bouncers, e><tra guards to inform them, A raid was organized on a specific tip off at the premises of.hotel Eldrado d'ance bar, under the supervisionofA'C.P.P'P.SinglrComprisirrqthe seiected staff of crime brancS, after the decoy gave the predetermined signal,. 13 dancing girls of tne bar cum dancing hall of Eldrado in turn were detaineda|ongwitlrManmoharr@Babbo|(alraa partner in inu said hotel' A case vide F.r.n.No.39 uO[6] dared 415106 uls.2941109134 l.P.c. & B LT'P' Act has beerr registered at P'S' Nizarnuddin'Sufficierrtnumberofladypo|ice Crl.M.C.No.21t1'lO[7] & conn.matters Pageg of 27 officers w.ere also mertber of ilre raiding party. f nvestigation of tru r.ru has beln- ta*en by f nsp. Ran Sinsh of A.n. cerf cri;;;;;;l:,1. 5' ft is apparent that the mafter was of pubric concern and trat was're reason,why tre porice rereased a press release' The incident was pubrished in various newspaperg the day next i.e. 5.6.2006 and si'ce,re above_captiorred petitio's pertain to news pubrisrred in 4 newspapers, we reproduce the contents ilrereof. 6' rn the newspaper 'Trre Times of rndia, as under:it was reported \ I -r' " Girls, Hotel Owner IVaEbed I Nevy Delhi:. A' illegal,dance bar berng run in a south Derrri rroter w1s busted ov.riru branch on saturday'.Fg.rrteen persons - 13 dance bar girrs and one of trie rroter owners - were arrested on several, charges, ranging fron- lOscenity to immoral traffiiking anolo-"trJni. v Tlre accused girls were allegedl), caught dancing in a scantiry crad state. "A raii was conducted on the premises of Er Dorado oanc"'our in Hotel '. Rajdoot after a signar from an,,iJur.over cop, wlro had been prese't inside. Th; girrs were caugrrt red-rranded," said Tejerrdra Luthra, DCp (crime branclr), "We also urr.it"O Manmohan alias Babbu r(arra, who is a partneii' the hoter,,' j lre added '"-:'vLL", An FIR was registered at ilre.Nizanruddin porice statio' under trre rerevant sectio's of the rpc and the|mmora|Traffic(Prevention)Acton5unday. The girls were later released on bail. Police said.ilre girrs were aged between 20 and 30 and lraired from rower nlioore-crass famiries. wlrile four of ilrern are from Derhi,-two each are Crl.M.C.No.2ttt/Ol & conn.matters page 1,o of 27.i from Bilrar, Noida and punjab and one eacrr from Koll<ata and Allahabad. The last woman, the only married person among the girls, said she was a lrotel guest. porice suspecl that her husband was also involved in tlre racket. He was detained for questioning. During interrogation, it was revealed that some of tlre accused girls were emproyed'in Mumbai dance bars but after those estaotistrments were shut down tlrey were forced to slrift base to the Capital. Crirne branclr officials were tipped-off about tlre lrotel's flourishing business on account of floor dance shows. Rajdoot Hotel [rad apparenily been lrosting clandestine slrows for tlreir clients since the past six years or more, clrargirrg T500 as entry fees. lnside Eldorado bar the dance " girls "lured custonners with obscene gestures". The owners of the lrotel allegedly facilitated the dance bar girls witlr rooms wlrere they indulged in flesh trade, apart from providing tlre dance floor. Further investigations revealed that the hotel owner had an elaborate systenr in place to avoid detection by the police. "Sophisticated gadgets used for security monitoring were installed at strategic points to alert the hotel administration at tlre sliglrtest hint of trouble," a senior of'ficial said. "That apart, they lrad hired several bouncers nruscle men and additional security guards to keep tlrem informed of any lawenforcement activity in and around the hotel," added the official. Undercover cops entered the bar as guests late on Saturday niglrt, and signaled the raiding. police team around 11.30 pm, after the "erotic dancing" began. Within minutes, the lrotel was surrounded by uniformed policenten'" {5>-' Page LL of 2.[7] Crl. M.C. No.2L[1],L/ 07 & conn. matters J >2/ 7 ' ln the newspaper 'Dainik Blrasl<ar, it was published as under:-,, Bhaslcar News. New l-.relhi, 4 June, Delhi ' Police crime Branch has"arrested 13 girls who were in the fleslr trade fronr Rajdoot Hotel on Mathura Road The Police lrave said on Saturday rright the crime Branclr raided Rajdoot Hotel and arrested 13 girls. They said tlre ages of all the girls were between 20 to 25 years.' Tlrey are residing in Mumbai and working in Dalrce Bars. After,the Dance Bar slrut down tlre slrifted to Delhi and started worlcing in Rajdoot Hotel and under the cover of doirrg massage, started working in the fleslr trade. The Police lrave arrested one nriddleman in connection with tlris. His name is Manmohan."

9. The rrext day i.e. on 06.06.2006 irr the newspaper,The Pioneer' it was further publislred as under:- "Ear Girls bacl< on Rajdoot Floor F{otel earns *o16 from dance bars than room occupancy Neeraj Chaulran New Delhi The 13 girls, wlro were caug.frt wlrile dancing, servir,g drinl<s and enticirrg guests at Rajdoot Hotel on Surrday were bacl<, irr business at the lrotel's Eldorado, bar on ' Monday. According to a senior police officer, failing to have a brisl< business, the.three star-rated hotel served everytlring - girls, wine and music against provisions of licensing act. More tlran 90 percerrt business of the lrotel was from dance bar girls, as room occupancy rate was very low. Rajdoot lrotel is the only tlrree star hotel in Delhi where floor slrows tal<e place. The officer also informed that all these girls are frqtn lower middle class families and most of them are unt-narried or divorcees. They had worked in Mumbai bars earlier and lcnow lrow to attract custotners. 'They were beirig paid {10,000/- per lxonth apart from wlrat ' they get on the dance floor. i Earlier 79 girls were arrested by Crirne Branch frorn this hotel in 1988. Manmohan l(alra alias Babbu (50) runs tlris lrotel in partnersIip with his brotfler Prem Crl. M.C. No.2 1,11,/ 07 & con n. matte rs Page t[3] of 27 / I -i./ l(alra but Prem, has nothing to do with Eldorado bai. Tlre lrotel managed to book onry seven to eight rooms on a normal day and l(alra was unable to pay thb salary to its B0 staff. i He used to run two shows daily for two lrours each from B:30 prn till midnight. Entry ticket here was t500 out of which t250 went tow;ards entertainment tai. Liquoi was too served in the bar and was very expensive - a bottle of beer cost t4B[5] Customers were charged heavily for food. The bar ha:; a capacity 50 to 60 people. According to the of-ficer, prostitution was allowed in tlre hotel rooms itsel,f ancl big customers were given a better deal Tlre officer says, "lf a customer liked any girl ancl wanted her to dance again on lris favourite song then lre was clrarged t[2],500 for tlrat particular song". Babbu lrirnself used to prompt girls to make eye contact witlr the customers so that they throw more money. Every sl'tow yielded over {One lakh to Babbu. He kept 50 percent lrimself, 10 percent was given tcl the wa.iters and bouncers and rest was given to the otlrer staff. T[e girls used to keep some amount froni the tip money..i According to tlre officer, Babbu lrimself lived in roon\ no.31B with a Russian girl. He told the police that the: girls tlremselves contacted'lrirn. Most of tlre girls are iit tlre age group of 20 to 24 except one Neelu (namE changed) who used to design dresses for tlre shows. Four girls are from Mumbai and were staying in hotel rooms. Rest of these girls are from areas lilce CR Park, Dwarl<a, Rolrini, Lodlri Road and Laxmi Nagar of Delhi. Tlre Delhi girls also used to stay in hotel rooms anr"l indulge iri prostitution. Babbu used lri-tech monitoring gadgets lilce ccTV cameras and magic eyes which Crl.M.C.No.2IIt/07 & conn.matters Page L[4] of 27 were- monitored from Room No.512 and 513 0f the lrotel and if a local cop visited trrere therr thb set-up was clranged."

10. On 05.06.2006, in news was published in under:tlre newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' thg Hindi ancl its translation reads as "13 Bar Girls arrested from Hotel: New Dellri, JS. Thirteen Bar Girls, dancing in; provocative and semi-nude condition, arrestecl, from Rajdoot Hotel at Mathura Road, by tlre Crime Branch of Delhi Police on Saturday night. Police lras also arrested Manmohan alias Bablr-r l(alra, a partner of the Hotel. With these arrests, police lras unearthed a racl<et of bringing; Mumbai Bar Dancers to Dellri and malcing them ) to dance in Hotels It has been reported, that police lrad received a '! secret information that tlre Bar Girls, brought, from Munrbai, are being used to lure the custonlers for prostitutiorr by their stimulating dances in tlre Rajdoot Hotel. For this purpose, the Hotel is providing the rooms and other facilities to its customer illegally. For reaching on the dance floor, for obscene dancing with music, the Hotel is charging Rupees Five Hundred from each customer.; Police had information tlrat to avoid any lcind ot raid, Hotel had got installed lriglrly'soplristicated Cameras and other equipments at various places, in the. Hotel including Entry Gate' lt was also \ learnt tlrat Hotel owner lras deputed Bouncers, wi"itf ers and additiorral security guards to stop any raidirrg staff at tlre gate itself. This information was found correct when tlrese were confirmed by the sources' Tlrereafter, one police team, led by ACP P.P.Singh, conducted a raid at Elderado Dance bar and arrested 13 Bar Girls Page L[5] of ?-7 I Crl. M.C.No.2ItI/01 & conn. matters * I alongwith Mannrolran. A case under various sections for indulging in tlre prostitution has been registered at Police Station Nizamr_r.ddin. Tlre investigations of case lrave been entrusted to Inspector Ran Singlr. On enquiry, it has been learnt that these Bar Girls belong to poor families and they are irr tlris profession, since their minor age, due to compellirrg.circunrs[ances, The Bar Girls, in tlre age of 20 to 30 years, are in this profession for years togetlrer. However, the Fatiala Court lras granted Bail to these Bar Girls."

11. On 27.6.2006 as a follow up story in tlre newspaper 'Dainil< Jagaran' a further publicatiorr was made in Hind[, translated version thereof reads as under:- "Mumbai Bar Girls enticinq tlre lrearts of Delhians Pradeep l(urrrar Sinqlr, New Delhi The love for Mumbai Bar Girls in Delhi is famous these days. These Bar Girls, came in Delhi in the search of jobs, are not only enticing the general i public but also becoming a lreadaclre for Delhi Police. The number of girls reaching from, Munrbai to Delhi can be presumed with tlre fact i that more tlran one and a half dozen girls have been arrested by the police withirr a period of one fiiorrtlr. As per sources, tlre numbers of Lhese Girls have reached in hundreds, who are staying at Five Star Hotels, l(otlris and Farm Houses' It is rruell known that lrundred of girls from llihar, Uttar Pradeslr, Madhya Pradeslr, Gujrat and Delhi were earning from Dance Bars at Mumbai, b'! the closing of Dance Bars in Mumbai, disturbed tlreir routine and they get theiT new shelter aL Dellri. There is another reason behind this, tha'-L most of tlre customers stayirrg with these girls in Dance Bars and Five star Hotels have connection withDellrialso'Somehavetlreirbusinessin Delhi arrd some others usecl to visit Delhi often i Crl. M.C.No. 2I1'U 07 & conn.matters Page L[6] of 27 for tlreir business. Tlre geograplrical condition of l Dellri also helps them..Some days back, the crime Branclr of Delhi police had ariested 11 Bar Girls from Rajdoot Hotel of soutlr Delhi in a raid. All tlrese Dancers were enticing tlre public of Delhi after the closure of Dance Bars in Mumbai., Arrests have been made from Greater l(ailash, Lajpat Nagar and Sarojini Nagar areas also. Another Bar Dancer of Mumbai was arrested with Raju Sarrsi,. a notorious Banl< Dacoit, by the Special staff of South District, but she was released as she had no criminal records. lt is surprising tlrat Bar Girls lrave made connection with criminals also. Tlrese criminals have connection with Mumbai also. As per police, it is a matter of concern. Tlre gangs of criminals can.use these lucrative girls for l<idrrapping, loot etc. crimes. Tlreir Company is giving double benefits r to criminals. The Cornpany of girls gives them easy way to get slrelter and also in spreading their networl<. Police has information of all these incidents, but tlrey lresitate to nab them in the absence of evidence. According to a senior officer, despite tlre disrr-rissal of one Sub-: Inspector of Crime Branch 'in tlre matter of Dance Bar case and Police Commissioner's keeping it in the category of an organized crime, the Station House Officers are optirrg to close their eyes from this side. Hite-outs of middlemen: Besides ' the posh colonies of Greater l(ailash, Defence Colony, South Ex, Saket PVR, Vasant Vilrar, Vasant Kunj and Connaught Place, facility of dealing is ava ila ble on nrobile pho nes a lso. After finalization of deal, tlre Bar Girls are dropped and picked-up irr luxurious vehicles." \2. Alleging tlrat the afore-rroted l"lews iterrs were defarnatory of Hotel Rajdoot and its owner, Sh.Manmohan l(alra, tlte stated owner of the hotel filed cornplairrts before Crl. M.C. No. 211'L/ 07 & conn.matters PagetT of27 1? I the learned ACMM alreging ilrat the accused named in the complaints lrad comm.itted offerrces punislratcle under Sectio n 4991500 tpC.

13. I reproduce in a tabular fornr the narne of ilre accused as also tlre designation and the concen-red petition filed by the person concerned in respect to the 4 criminal conrplaints filed by respondent No.2 pertairring to the news itenrs publislred irr tlre Times of India, Dainil< Blrasl<ar, The Pioneer and Dairril< Jagran. lt reads as under:- (A) Newspaper- THE TIMES OF tNDIA Name of Accused Designation PetiLion No. I Vineet Jain Managing Director Petitioner in Crl. M.C. 2rru2007 Arindam Sen Gupta Editor Petitioner No. 1 in Crl.M.C. 27 0412007 Balraj Arora Printer and Pubiisher (Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. ) Petitioner No. in Crl.M.C. 27 04t2007 2' (B) Newspaper- DAINII< BHASKAR Crl. M.C. No. 2t11,/ 07 & co nn. matte rs Page L[8] of 27 I Name of Accused Desig na.tio n PeLition No. Ramesh Chander Agarwal Editor Crl. M.C. 2863t200 i.

(C) Newspaper- DAtNil( IAGARAN

(D) Newspaper- PIONEER

Crl. M.C. No.2tt1"/ 07 & conn.matters I Page L[9] of 27 Name of Accused Deisgnation Petitiorr No. Ma trinder Mohan Gupta Clrairn'lan cun't Managing Director (Petitioner Crl. M.C. r92t200B). Sanjay Gupta Editor Petitioner No. 1 Crl. M.C. 10s2/2008 t Pradeep l(umar Reporter Petitioner N o. 2 Crl. M.C. 10s2/2008 Name of Accused Desiqnation Petition No Durbar Ganguly Joint Managing D i recto r Petitioner Crl. M.C.308?-12007 Clrandan Mitra Printer a nd publislrer Petitioner Crl. M.C.3083/2007 Manoj CG Reporter, PTI Petitioner in Crl.M.C.I224l200B -Ja

14. Defamation has been defined as a false statement which lras the' tendency to disparage the good name or reputation of anotlrer person. strictly speaking, in terms of the statute, as per section 4gg lrrdian penal code, the offence of defamation consists of tlrree vital components whiclr can be categorised as under:-

(i) Mal<ing or publishing any imputation concerning any person.

(ii) Such irnputatiorr must have been made by words either written or 'spol<en or by visible representation.

(iii) Suclr irnputation must [:e made with the intention to cause harm or witlr tlre lcnowledge or having reasons to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned..

15. Petitioners contend that apart from tlre reporter, the editor, printer and publisher would be liable if a scandalous publication relates to a newspaper arrd additiorrally woul'd urge that if a newspaper trutltfully reports a news itern, pertairring to a fact whicli is of public interest, nobody can be prosecuted for tlre offence of defarrration; 16., Tlre corrrplainant alleges that the news items are p€:r se defamatory and that all accused would be liable.

17. A fair reportirrg pertairring to a matter of public conCern, witlrout insinuations and innuendos i.e. a news itenr containing statements of true facts is not actionable for tlre offence of criminal defamation.

18. | ftave a relook at the news reports. They have been extracted by me in paras 6 to 11 above Crl. M.C. No. 21,t1'/ 07 & co nn. matte rs Page 2O of 1"7,^>/

19. Pertairring to ilre newspaper 'The Times of India, the news item is extracted irr para 6 above. The contents of the FIR have been noted in para 2 and 3 above. The press release lras been noted in pa ra 4 above.

20. Tlre news item simpry publislres tlre fact of the raid conducted and 13 dance bar girrs being appreherrded. The nature of activity as per tlre FrR at the dance bar has beqn reported, similar is the position with the news r itern publislred in tlre 3 other newspapers 2!. I would lriglrlight tlrat tlre' source on wrrich the publishers acted was a proper source i.e. the porice. The 9th exception to section 499 IPC is prirna facie attracLed. There are no innuendos in the publicatiorrs. A fact pertaining to an FIR being registered witlr reference to the activities found to be carried out from Hotel Rajdoot as recorded in the FIR has been publislred, Tlre FIR was made public by tlre police along witlr a press release.

22. Pertaining to tlre liability, primarily a reporler:s resporrsible for lris act of defamatiorr and vicarious liability is fastened only on the printer, pubrlisher and editor of the newspaper as held by me in rny judgment datecl 2I.9.2007 disposirrg of Crl.M.C. No.35/2005 'Mrs.Sltobhana Bhartia & Ors. vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr.'. Tlrus, unless tlre contrary is proved the persons declared as printer, publisher and editgr of the newspaper wlro would be presumed to be responsible for tlre contents of tlre newspaper orr tlre question whethqr any person other tlran tlre printer, publisher and editor can be prosecuted for a defamatory at'ticle, apart fronr the reporter, needs a few decisions to be noted:- Crl. M.C. No. 211'1"/ 07 & co nn.rnatters Page 2l of 2,[7] I uy " (i)_ lQ@_pf_Uaharashtra v R, B. Chowdhari, AtR 1968 SC 110:- Tlre public prosecutor fileO a complaint under section 500 lpc against four persons wlro were members of the Editorial Board of a Maratlri weel<ly named,,Maharashtra,,. One of the accused, sudliakar Gopar Madane, had fired the declaration in the prescribed form under the Ac! describing himself as flre editor, printer and publisher of the newspaper. The particular copy of the Malraraslrtra irr wlriclr the alleged defamatory article appeared bore the name of one,Madane as the printer, publisher and editor of tlre newspaper. lt also slrowecl on the front page that ttre Editorial Board consisted of lvladane and tlrree other accused. The question arose whether tlre ffiembers of Editorial Board could be prosecuted for defamatory article. Adverting to Section 7, tlre Supreme.Court held tlrat:i.''7.Theternr'editor'isdefinedintlreActto rrean a person wlro contiols the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Where there is mentioned an editor is a person who is responsible for selection of tlre material. Section 7 raises tlre l presunrption in respect of suclr a person.. Tlre name of that person lras to be printed on tlre copy of the, newspaper and in the present case tlre na ffie of Mada ne admittedly was printed as the Editor of the i Maharashtra in tlre copy of tlre Malrarashtra wlriclr contained the defanratory article. The declaration in Form I which has been produced before us shows tlre name of Madane not only as Llre printer and 'publisher but also as tlre editor. In our I opin ion tlre presu m ptio n will attaclr to Madane as lravirrg selected tlre material for publication irr the newspaper. lt may not be i out of place to note tlrat Madane admitted that he had written this article. In the circunrstances not only the presumption t: cannot be drawt"t againsl. the others who had Crl. M.C. No. 21,t[1],/ 07 & co nn. matters Page27 of 27 not declared themselves as editors of the newspaper but it is also fair to leave thenr out because they had no concern with ilre publislring of the article in question. On the whole therefore the order of disclrarge made by the learned sirrgle Judge appears; to be proper in the circumstances of the case and we see no reason to interfere.,,

(ii) T,K.S.Muthukova v Ha " C.H. Mohammad

Kova, (1979) 2 SCC B:-Question before Supreme Court was wlrether the Chief 'Editor of a newspaper can be prosecuted for publication of a defamatory article. In para 34 of the decision, Supreme Court observed as under:- ' " 34. From the facts establislred above, it is ( 1 manifest that the petitioner lras miserably failed to prove either that the appellant was ' tlre editor of the paper or that he was I perfornrirrg tlre functions, duties or shouldering the responsibilities of the editor. lt is obvious that a presumption: under Sectiorr 7 of the Press Act could be drawn orrly if tlre person concerned was an: editor withirr tlre meaning of Section 1 of tlre Press Act. Where however a person does not fulfil the conditiorrs of Section 1 of ' the Press Act and does not perform the functions of an editor wlratever may be his ! description or designation, tlre provisions of the Press Act would have no application.'.."

(iii) K.M. Mathew v State of lGrela & Anr', l-992

Crit1ffitiorr to prosecution of Clrief Editor of a newspaper for publication of a defamatory news article, Supreme Court observed as under:- "9. In tlre instant case tlrere is no averment against the Chief Editor except the motive attributedtohim.Evetrtlrenrotiveal|eged; is general and vague' Tlre cbmplainant Crl.M.C.No.21.tIlO[7] & conn.matters PageZ[3] of 2v, vseems to rely upon the presumption under Sectiorr 7 of the press and Registration of Boolcs Act, 1867 (,ilre Act'). But Section z of the Act lras no applicability for a person wlro is simply named as 'Chief Editor'. The presumption under Section 7 is only against tlre person whose nanre is printJo ai 'editor'as required under Section 5(1). Tlrere is a nrandatory (ilrough rebuttable) presumption tlrat flre person whose name is printed as 'Editor, is tlre editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper.of wlrich a copy is produced, Section 1(1) of the Act defines 'Editor' to mean 'the llerson. wlro controls tlre selection of ilre matter tlrat is published in a newspaper'. Section 7 raises tlre presumption in respect of a person wlro is named as the editor and printed as such on every copy of the newspaper. Tlre Act does not recognise any otlrer legal errtity for raising tlre presumption. Even if tlre name of ilre Chief Editor is prirrted in the newspaper, tlrere is no presumption against lrirr-r under Section I of tlre Act. See State of MaharashLra v R.B. Clrowdhari, AIR 1968 SC 110; D.p. Mishra v l(amal Narain Sharma & Ors, AIR 1970 SC 856; Narasinglr Charan Mohanty v Surendra Mohanty, AIR l-974 SC 47; Haji C.H. Molrammad l(oya v T.l<.S.M.A. Muthukoya, AIR I979 SC 154.

10. lt is important' to state that for a Magistrate to talce cognizance of the offence as agairrst the Chief Editor, there must be positive averments in the complaint of l<nowledqe of the objectiorrable clraracter oF tlre matter. The corrlplairrt in the instant case does not contain any suclr allegation. ln the absence, of such allegation,'tlre Magistrate was justified in directing that tlre complaint so far as it relates to tlre Clrief Editor could not Crl.M.C.No.2lIi/07 & conn.matters Page 24 of '27 \>be proceeded with. To asr< ilre chief Editor to undergo flre trial of tlre case merely on the ground of the issue of process wourd be oppressive. No person should be tried witlrout a prima facie case. The view taken by the High Court is untenable. Tlre appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Higlr Court is set aside.,, !Y), 1983 cru 777:- A learned single Judge or ttris court wers considering wlretlrer the clralrnran and Executive Editor of a newspaper could be prosecuted for pu blicatio n of a defa nratory a rticle. \/Vith reference to Chairman, it was observed as under:- "Needless to say tlrat as Chairman of the Company Shri Goenlca can be held liable for the publication of tlre offerrding news items orrly if it is slrown that lre was somehow concerned with the p[rblication of the defanratory news items. lt is lriglrly doubtful that he can be asked to answer the clrarge of defamation merely, because he lrappened to be tlre Chairman of the Conrpany owning tlre newspaper without tlr ere being a ny fu rtlrer evid ence as rega rds h is pa rticipatiorr in the actual management and administration of the affairs of the company. lrrterrtion on the ' part of the accused to lrarm tlre reputation or the l<nowledge or reasonable belief that an inrputatiorr will harnr the reputation of th e persons co n cernecJ is a n essentia I ingredient of offence under 5. 400, IPC but suclr evidence. is totally missing in the instant case. Under the circumstances the impugned order as regards Slrri Goenka cannot be sustained on this short qround." J J Crl. M.C. No.2 1,11/07 & conn.matters PageZi of77 \- o \? After referring to Section 3,,1., 5, Press and Registration of Boolcs learned Judge aOOeO'- 6 and 7 of flre Act, 1867, the _L- "However, it is difficult. to draw such a presumption in ilre case of other petitioners viz., Arun Shorie, petitiorrer No. 2 and A. p. Dlrar petitioner No. 4. Their lrames do not find place in the declaration printed on the newspaper itself and there is no iota of evidence to show that they are in any ma nner concerned wittr the collection, control or selection of the matter prirrted in tlre newspaper. Their designations as Executive Editor/Editor of the Express News Service will rrot per sb warrant an inference that they are in any way responsible for the selection of the material. An authority for this view may be found in the State of Maharashtra v. R. B, Clrowdlrari, AIR 1968 sc 110.",

23. Fronr tlre afore-noted judicial pronouncenrent, it can safely be said that besides persfns declared as editor, printer and pulclisher of a newspaper, orrly such persons could be prosecuted for an action of defamation against wlrom specific and clear allegations lrave been made irr the cprxplaint that either he was responsible for selection of the defamatory matter or had personal knowledge about the contents of the defamatory matter. lrr addition, it must also be averred in the complaint tlrat suclr person had the interrtion to lrarm or had knowledge or reason to believe tlrat the irnputation will harm tlre reputation of the complairrant. The chairman or,'tlre nrarraging director of a company owning a newspaper is neither the editor, nor the printer, nor the publislrer and therefore no presunnption can Crl.M.C.No.21,I[1],/07 & conn.nratters Page26 of 27 fi (r I ' investigative journa lism'' 26'Thepetitionsareallowed.ThecompIaintsirrrpugned in each petition as also the summoning order are quashed'

27. No costs _ F,,...-*. - -rr ',-: t'',-t-:l:ls-:Jl$Ltli: \l il (PRADEEP h!AI{DRAJ0G).luDGE r{ \y bs dra\^/n against the holder of these offices even though they are, by reason of tlre office held by them, in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business,

24. I do not find any such pleadings in the complaint against Vineet Jain, Mahinder Mohan Gupta and Durbur Ganguly and thus,qua them the complaints are liable to be quashed on the sole ground that merely because Vineet Jain is the managing director of Bennett coleman & co' Ltd" Mahincler Mohan Gupta is the chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company publishing the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran,andDurburGanguIyistheJointManagingDirectorof thecompanypub|ishingthenewspapgr,ThePioneer',onthe reason of the office held by them,'they cannot be made liable. '25.Quatlrerestltro|dthatthenewsitemscontainno innuendos.AfactofanFIRbeingregisteredwiththe contents thereof has been published' Tlre publication of the newsitempertainstoamatterofpubticinterest'The publicatiorrisatrueanc|afaithfuIreportofafact'I highIightthattlrereportershavenotcarriedot'ttany 0ctober L0, 2011dk Crl.M.C.No.2 1,1'IlO[7] & conn'matters Page?7 ot27