Manoj CG v. NCT of Delhi & Anr.

9. l(areena D/o Kishan La, R/o F-40, Jawahar Bagh, Shal<arPUr, Laxmi Nagar, Dell'ti

10. Tabassum D/o siddharth Blrardwaj R/o 200, Lodhi Road ComPlex, New Delhi.

11. Arrjali D/o surender Yadav R/o A-703, serrentlr Floor,l(anchanjungaApartrnentDwarl<a'Neur Delh i:I[2]. Maya sirrgh w/o Rajerrder sirrgh R/o l-Block, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, Baclarpur, New Delhi'

13. Reenu Saxerra, W/o Sarab Saxena, R/o 727 ' Sector 19, Pocl<et 111 Dwarl<a, New Delhi' Tlresegir|swittrtlreirgesturesandtalksWere i1stigatirrg the customers for t5e wrong cleeds arrd tlre customers were getting instigated to involve in wrong deeds' Apart from us' Shrl t Crl. M.C. No. 21L1"1 07 & conn'tnatte rs t Rameslr Balrl, 5/o Slrri Anrar Nath, R/o 1692 Arya Samaj Road, l(arol Baglr, Dellri and Shri Anil l(umar S/o. Preetam l(umar R/o C-34, Shakti Nagar, Delhi lrad also come to see ilre dance and tlrey were also slroclced and angry to see the show witlr about 50 to 60 audience uiho were also watching tlre show. Out of all these audience, most of them were also instigatecl with the same vulgar feelings as we were. ln this regard, police investigation shall be carried out against Shri Babbu l(alra wlrose full name is Man Molran l(alra S/o Slrri l(islran Lal l(alra arrd I have lranded over tlre two ticlcets wlrose numbers I have already given you along with tlre two {500 denomination notes. Staternent lreard and it is correct. "

3. Arr endorsement was nrade statenrent wlriclr reads as under:beneath the "ACP had the infornration of Rajdoot Hotel tlrai the owner Babbu l(alra and Prem l(alra are. running a dance Bar in tlre Hotel where they serve clrirrks and girls from differerrt cities of. lndia peri=or-m obscene danc.es. where these girts witlr tlreir obscene gestures instigate tlre customers. This inforrnation was brought to tire I knowledge and secretly it was investigated and it was for-rrid to be correct. We t6e Raiding T-eam alongwitlr ACP, lrrspector Jeet sirrgh special Team, lnspector Raj Vir Sing|-t, AATS/Crirne Branch and staff sl Raj l(rttnar, Sl Bhagurati Prasacl, sl Buddlr Parlcaslr, ASI Ravinder corrst. SanjayKain.SpecialTeamSlParrl<ajYadav'Sl SelrdevRana,HCBheenrSing|r,HCTanveer, AATSStaff,SISurinderRana,AS|SameerSingh, Const.PardeepHudda,Const'SatPal'LadySl Puslrap Yadav and Lady Corrst.l(avita, 48, Crime Branch,LadyCorrst.Mul<eshNo'303DRP'Lady Const.AnitaNo'2947/Crime.Thisteamhad alreadybeencalIedandinstructedtodeveIopon Crl.M.C.No.2lrllrll[7] & conn'matters Pagev of 27 I the information and the Police Station of the area Jangpura Mathura Road was informed about it and tlre team was present there. The secret informer informed that at tlris time also there.are obscene dances/Cabra is going on in the Hotel Rajdoot. On this information one Raiding Party alongwitlr a Staff and Rajiv l(umar Clraudhary along witlr Dilip l(umamr was prepared and the instructions were given to: 'both tlre witnesses and were also harrded over two notes of denomination of t500/- eaclr and were irrstructed to go into tlre Rajdoot Hotel and watclr the dance and were further instructed that if any obscene activities are takirrg place tlren witness Dilip, l(umar would come out and would make the irrstructed irrdication. Thereafter, all of 'us also took positiorr around Rajdoot llotel. At about

11.30 PM, orr the irrdicatiorr given by the witness Dilip l(umar the whole Raiding Party went into Bar Hall of the Rajdoot Hotel i.e. Eldorado Restaurant where 13 girls who were dancing turn, by turn on the stage and Were inal<ing obscene g-estures to instigate the people sitting in the Bar Room ancl Babnu rcalra who was also irrstigating tlrem to perform such obscene gestures were talcen under custody' Tlre complainant Rajeev l(umar CfiuOhary Sio Ranr Veer Sirrgh recorded tris statenrent and case uls 2941l"09134 IPC and u/sBottrpActwasregistered'T|ratCasemay be registered'"

4. Tlre police releasecl a press release' which reads as under:- "With tlre arrest of 13 bar girls caught wlrile performing obscene, sex provocative' semi-nude floor darriing shows at Rajdoot Hotel' Mathura Road, lasi nlght, sleuths oi crime branch Delhi Police have been able to smash a well organized' scandalort tulkut being run by the owners of the said.otul *f.'"ru the da]rce bar girls from Bombay dance op.nrvtnticed/allure the visiting guests for Crl.M.C.No.2 11U07 & conn'matters Page B of 27 It I v sexual acts while dressed in alluring and scanty dresses. One of tlre partners of said lrotel namely Manmohan @ Babbu l(alra has also been arrested for abetting, aiding these dance bar girls to achieve their illegal designs. An information was received at crime branclr that tlre owners of Rajdoot Hotel are flourislring there bus1ness by orgarrizing floor dance slrows where dance girls allure customers through obscene gestures,. words, actions, wilfull.y exposing their person to attract the attention of spectators/guests for the purpose of prostitution. For tlris purpose tlre hoteliers facilitates them by providing accommodation at their hotel for carryirrg out their illegal, nefarious and antisocial activities irr the garb of floor dance playing sexy songs/tunes. The hotel management charge each guest {500. Tlris information was developed lcy the officers of Anti Robbery Cell crimei: branch, specifically entrusted witli this tasl<. On verification tlrrough secret soLtrces the information was found to be authentic. The hotel owners used extra ordinary vigilantsystenrusingHi-techSeCurity/mon1t9ri1q gadgets installed at ilre various locations of hotel towardoffanyclrec|<so|ltlreirantisocial activities. They lrave lrired a n u mber of tttusclemen, bouncers, extra gua rds to irrform tlrem.,Araidwasorganizedonaspecific.tipoffattlre premises of jiotel Eldrado datrce bar' under the supervisionofA.C.P.P'P.SirrglrComprisirrgtlre seiected staff of crime branclr, after the clecoy gave tne pieOetermirred signal". 13. dancing girls oftlrebar,cunrdancinghallofEldradointurnWere detairrei ulonq witlr Manmoharr @ Babbo l(alra a purt,'',ur in ii-'" said hotel' A case vide F.l.R.No'3gUoodated415l06uls294|]-09l34l.P.C' & B f i.p Act lras been registered at P'S' Nizarnuddin' Sufficient number of lady police - Crl.M.C.No. z-|tJl[7 & conn'matters ageg of 27 <7 officers were also member of ilre raiding party. f nvestigation of tre case has bee,i tu*en by Insp. Ran Singlr of A.R. cell crime Oru*h.,;' 5' ft is apparent trat the nratter was of pubric concerl and ilrat was ure reason why ure porice rereased a press release. The incident was pubrished in various newspapers; the day next i.e. 5.6.2006 and since tre above-captioned petitions pertain to news pubrisrred in 4 newspapers, we reproduce tlre contents ilrereof. 6' r' the newspaper 'Trre Times of India, it was reported as under:- Girls, Hotel Owner [Vabbed New Delhi:. An illegal dance bar being run in a south Derrri hoter was busted ov criru orunch on. Saturday. -Fgrrteen persons _ 13 dance bar girls. and one of the rroter owners - were arrested on several ' charges, ranging from obicenity to inrnrora I traffickirrg a nd ab-etmerrt The accused girls were allegecll), caught dancing in a scantiry crad state. "A raib was- conducted on the premises of El Dorado dance bar in Hotel Rajdoot after a signar from ar undercover cop, wlro lrad been prese.t irrside. The girrs *"i" cauglrt red-lranded,', said Tejerrdr-a LuIhra, DCp (crime branclr). "we arso arrested Manmohan alias Babbu l(alra, wlro is a partner i' the hotel,,' he added. An FIR was registered at tlre Nizanruddin police station under the relevant sections of flre lpc and the lmfftoral Traffic (prevention) Act on Sunday. The girls were later released on bail. Police said tlre girls were aged between 20 and 30 and lrailed from lower nriddle-class families. While four of tlrern are from Delhi, two'each are I Lrl M.C.No.2111"/O[7] & conn.rratters Page LO of 27 1>from Bilrar, Noida and punjab and one each from l(ollcata and Allalrabad. The last woman, the only nrarried persotl among the girls, said she was a hotel guest. Police suspect ttrat her husband was also involved in the racket. He was detained for questioning. During interrogation, it was revealed that some of tlre accused girls were en-rployed in Mumbai dance bars but after those establishments were slrut down tlrey were forced to slrift base to the Capital. Crirne branch officials were tipped-off about tlre lrotel's flourishing business on account of floor dance slrows. Rajdoot Hotel had apparei'rtly been lrosting clandestine shows for their clierrts since the past six years or more, clrargirrg t500 as entry fees. Inside Eldorado bar the dance girls'"lured custonrers with obscene gestures". The owners of the lrotel allegedly facilitated the dance bar girls witlr rooms wlrere tltey indulged in flesh trade, apart from providing tlre dance floor. Furtlrer investigations rev€aled that the hotel owner had an elaborate system in place to avoid detection by the police. "sophisticated gadgets used for security monitoring were installed at strategi. pqints to alert tlre hotel administration at tlre slightest lrint of trouble," a senior official said. "That apart, they had hired several bouncers muscle men and additional security guards to lceep tlrem infornred of any lawenforcetnent activity in and arout'td tlre hotel," added tlre official. Undercover cops entered tlre bar as guests late. on Saturday niglrt, and sigrraled the raiding police teanr around 11.30 pll, after the "erotic dancing" began. Witlrin mitl.ttes, the lrotel was surrounded by uniformed policetnen'" i Crl.M.C.No.2 t1'L/07 & conn.matters Page LI of 27 I a)/

7. In the newspaper 'Dainil< Bhaslcar' it was published as under:- "t[3] GrRts ituvotve o rru rlrsrl tnRnr RRRrstEo Bhasl<ar News. New l_,relhi, 4 June, Delhi Police Crime Branclr has arrested 13 girls who were in tlre fleslr trade fronr Raidoot Hotel on Matlrura Road. Tlre Police lrave said on Saturday night tlre Crime Branch raided Rajdoot Hotel and arrested 13 girls. Tlrey said the ages of all the girls were between 20 to 25 years. They are residing in Mumbai and worl<ing in. Dance 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 worl<ing in the fleslr trade. The Police have arrested one middlenran in connection with tlris. His name is Manmohan."

9. Tlre next day i.e. on 06.06.2006 irr the newspaper'The Pioneer' it was further published as under:- "Ear Girls bacl< on Rajdoot Floor Hotel earns more from dance bars than rootn occupancy Neeraj Chauhan New Delhi Tlre 13 girls, who were caugltt wlrile dancing, serving drinks arrd enticirrg guests at Rajdoot Hotel on Sunday were bacl<, irr business at tlre hotel's Eldorado, bar cn Monday. According to a senior police officer, failing to lrave a brisl< business, tlre" three star-rated lrotel served everything - girls, wine and music against provisions of licensirrg act. More than 90 percent business of the lrotel was from dance bar girls, as room occupanc.y rate was very low. Rajdoot lrotel is the orrly three star lrotel irr Delhi where floor sl'tows tal<e place. Tlre officer also informed that all these girls are frotn lower middle class families and most of them are upt-narried or divorcees. i-hey lrad worked in Mumbai bars earlier and l<now lrow to attract custotners- They were being paid {10,000/- per lrlonth apart from whert they get on the dance floot Earlier 79 girls were arrested by Crirne Branch frotn tlris lrotel ip 1988. Manmohan l(alra alias Babbu (50) runs tlris lrotel in partnerslrip with his brother Prem Crl. M.C. No. 21L1'/ 07 & conn. matte rs Page L[3] of 27 l(alra but Prem, has nothing to do with Erdorado bar'. The lrotel managed to book only seven to eight rooms on a normal day and l(alra was unable to pay the salary to its B0 staff. i He used to run two slrows daily for two lrours eaclr from B:30 pm till midrright. Errtr-y ticket here was T500 out of which t250 went towards entertainment tax. Liquor was too served in the bar and was very expensive - a bottle of beer cost T4B[5] Customers were clrarged heavily for food. The bar has a capacity 50 to 60 people. According to the of-ficer, prostitution was allowed in tlre lrotel roonls itself ancl big custorners were given a, better deal, Tlre officer says, "lf a custonrer lilced any girl ancl wanted her to dance again on lris favourite song then lre was charged T[2],500 for tlrat particular song". Babbu hirnself used to prompt girls to make eye contact witlr the customers so tlrat they throw rnor(: money. Every slrow yielded over {One lakh to Babbu. He l<ept 50 percent lrimself, 10 percent was given tr:r tlre waiters and bouncers and rest was given to the other staff. The girls used to lceep some amount fronr the tip fftoney. According to the officer, Babbu himself !ived in roorTl no.318 with a Russian girl. l-le told the police that the girls themselves contacted lrirn' Most of tlre girls are in tlre age group of 20 to 24 except one Neelu (name changed) wlro used to design dresses for the shows. Four girls are from Mumbai and were staying in hotel rooms. Rest of these girls are frorr areas like cR Park, Dwarlca, Rolrini, Lodlri Road and Laxmi Nagar of Delhi' The Dellii girls also used to stay in hotel rooms and indulge iri Irostitution. Babbu used lri-tech morritoring gadgets lil<e CCTV calrleras and magic eyes wlricir Crl.M.C.No.2 L11/07 & conn'matters Page L[4] of 27 b were rnonitored from Roonr No.512 and 513 of the lrotel and if a local cop visited trrere therr the set-uo was clranged."

10. Orr 05,06.2006, in ttre newspaper 'Dainik Jagran, the news was published in Hindi and its translation reads under:- "13 Ear Girls arrested from !-.lotel New Dellri, JS. Thirteen Bar Girls, dancing !n provocative a1rd semi-nude con'dition, arrestecl from Rajdoot Hotel at Matlrura Road, by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police on Saturday night. Police has also arrested Marrnnohan alias P-,ablu l(alra, a partner of the Hotel. Witlr these arrests, police lras u nea rthed a racl<et of bring ing Murnbai Bar Dancers to Dellri and making them to dance in Hotels. It has been reported, tlrat police lrad received a secret information tlrat tlre Bar Girls, brcugnt fro nr M u nr ba i, a re being used to lu re the custonrers for prostittttiorr by their stimulating dances in tlre Rajdoot Hotel. For this purpose,. tlre Hotel is providing the rooms and other facilities to its customer illegally, For reaching i on tlre dance floor, for obscene dancing with music, the Hotel is clrarging Rupees Five Hundred from each ct-tstomer. Police had information tlrat to avoid any lcind oi raid, Hotel lrad got installed lriglrly sophisticatecl cameras and other equipments at various places in the Hotel irrcluding Errtry Gate. lt was also learnt tlrat Hotel owner has deputed Bot-tttcers, wrestlers arrd additiorral security guards to stop anyraidirrgstaffatt|tegateitse|f.This} irrfbrrnatiotr was found correct when these were ionfirmed by the sources. Thereafter, one police team,ledbyACPP.P.Singh,conductedaraidat Elderaclo Dance bar and arrested 13 Bai Girls Crl.M.C. No.2 L1'Il 07 & conn.matters Page L[5] of 27 A'S I.ry alongwitlr Manmohan. A case under various sections for indulging in ihe prostitution has been registered at Police Station Nizamuddin. Tlre investigations of case'have been entrustecl to Inspector Ran Sirrglr. On enquiry, it has been learnt that tlrese Bar Girls belong to poor families and they are irr tlris professiorr, since tlreir rninor age, due to compelling circumstances. The Bar Girls, in tlre age of 20 to 30 years, are in ilris professior-r for years togetlrer. However, the Fatiala Court lras granted Bail to tlrese Bar Girls."

11. Orr 27.6.2006 as a follow'up story in 'Dainil<. Jagaran' a further publicatiorr was translated version thereof reads as under:the newspaper made in Hindi, "Mumbai Bar Girls enticinq tlre lrearts of Delhians. UaOeep Kumar Sin Tlre love for Mumbai Bar Girls in Delhi is famous these days. These Bar Girls, canre in Delhi in tlre search of jobs, are not orrly errticirrg tlre general public but also beconring a lreadaclre for Delhi Police. The number of girls reaching from Mumbai to Delhi 'can be presurned witlr tlre fact that more tlran one and a half dozen girls have been arrested by the police withirr a period of one montlr. As per sources, the numbers of Lhese Girls have reached in hundreds, who are staying, at Five Star Hotels, l(othis and Farnr Houses. It is well known that lrundred of girls from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesrr, Gujrat and Delhi were earning from Dance Bai-s at Mumbai, but the closing of pance Bars in Mumbai, disturbed their routine and tliey get their new shelter at Del[i. Tlrere is another reason belrind this, tha'L.] most of tlre customers stayirrg witlr these girls in: Dance Bars arrd Five Star Hotels have connection with Delhi also. some have tlreir business in r Delhi arrd some others used to visit Delhi often I Crl.M.C.No.2 L1'U07 & conn.matters Page L[6] of 27 or 12' for tlreir business. Tlre geograplrical condition of Dellri also helps them. Sorne days bacl<, the Crime Branclr of Dellri Police lrad ariested 11 Bar Girls from Rajdoot Hotel of Soutlr Delhi in a raid. All tlrese Dancers were enticirrg 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 Sansi, a notorious Banl< Dacoit, by the Special staff of Soutlr District, but she was released as she had no criminal records. lt is surprising tlrat Bar Girls have made connection witlr criminals also, These criminals have connection with Mumbai also. As per police, it is a matter of concern. The garrgs of criminals can use these lucrative girls for lcidnapping, loot etc. crimes. Their Company is giving double benefits to crinrirrals. Tlre Company of girls gives them easy way to get slrelter and also in spreading their network. Police has information of all Lhese incidents, but tliey hesitate to nab them in the absence of evidence. According to a senicr officer, d espite the disrnissa I of one Sublnspector of Crime Branclr in the nratter of Dance Bar case arrd Police Comnrissioner's lceeping it in the category of an organized crime, the Station House Officers are optirrg to close their eyes from this side. Hite-outs of rniddlenren: Besides tlre posh colonies of Greater Kailaslr, Defence Colony, South Ex, Saket PVR, Vasant Vilrar, Vasarrt Kunj and Connaught Place, facility of dealirrg is I ava ila ble on rlotrile p ho nes also. After firralization of deal, tlre Bar Girls are dropped and picked-up in luxurious vehicles'". ]l[2]. Alleging tlrat tl're afore-noted news itenrs wer[5] defa6atory of Hotel Rajdoot and its owner, Sh.Manmohan l(alra, tlre stated owner of the lrotel filed complairrts befor: Crl.M.C.No.2IlI/ 07 & conn.matters PagetT of27 Y the learned ACMM alleging that the accused named in the coLn pla ints lr ad com rn itted offen ces pu n islrable under Section 4991500 lPC.

13. I reproduce in a tabular form the name of the accused. as also tlre designation and the concenred petition filed by the person concerned in respect to the 4 criminir complaints filed by respondent No.2 pertainirrg to the news items published irr the Times of India, Dainik Bliaslcar, The Pioneer and Dainil< Jagran. lt reads as under:- (A) Newspaper- THE TIMES OF ll\DlA Name of Accused Designation Petition No. Vineet Jain Managing Director Petitioner in Crl.M.C. 2rru2007 Arindanr Sen Gupta Editor Petitioner No. 1 irr Crl.M.C. 27 0412007 Balrai Arora Printer and Publislrer (B e n rrett Coleman & Co. Lrd.) Petitioner No. in Crl.M.C. I (B) Newspaper- DAlNll( BHASIGR Petition No. a t Ramesh Clrander Agarwal Crl.M.C.No.2 1'1'Il 07 & conn.tnatters Editor Crl. M.C. Page L[8] of 77 Nanre of Accused i \. ^ { v\\ - \ t,- '( I:l I I --l I ti 7i I --l I 7l I "--{ i Bi.l I

(D) Newspaper- PIONEER

(C) Newspaper- DAtNtK IAGARAN

Nante of Accused Deisgnation Petitiorr No. Ma lrinder Mohan Gupta Clrairnta n cum Ma naging D irecto r (Petitiorr er Crl. M.C. 1821200 B ). Sanjay Gupta Editor Petitioner No. 1 Crl. M.C. l-05212008 Pradeeo l(umar Reporter Petitioner No. 2 Crl. vt.c. 1052/2008 Name of Accused Desig nation Petition No Durbar Ganguly Joint Managing Director Petitioner Crl.M.C.3082i 200 Clrandarr Mitra Printer and publisher PeLitioner Crl. M.C.3083/20C Manoj CG Reportet-, PTI Petitioner tn Crl. M.C.IZ?- 4l2OA q[7]

74. Defamation has been defined as a false stbtement which has tlre' tendency to disparage tlre 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 comDonents which can be categor-ised as under:-

(i) Ma lcirrg or pu blislr ing a ny im putation concerning any person.

(ii) Such imputation must have been rrrade by words eitlrer u,lritten or spoken or by visible representation.

(iii) Such imputatiorr must l.;e made with the intention to cause harm or witlr the lcnowledge ' or lravir-rg reasons to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.

15. Petitioners contend that apart from tlre reportei-. th': editor, printer and publisher would be liable if a scandalouls publication relates to a newspaiper and additionally woulC urge that if a newspaper trutftfully reports a rlews itettt, pertaining to a fact whiclr is of public interest, nobody can be prosecuted for tlre offence of defanration'

16. The complainant alleges that the news items 3161 p€:lse defamatory and that all accused would be liable.

17. A fair reporting pertairring to a matter of public ConCern, without insinuatiorrs and intruendos i.e. a news item containirrg statements of true facts is rrot actiotlab'le for tlre offence of criminal defamation,

18. I have a relook at the news rr:ports. They have been extracted by nre in paras 6 to 11 above' Crf. M.C. ltlo.[2] ttt/ 07 & conn'matters Page 2O of 77 I \Aq>

19. Pertairring to tlre newspaper,The Times of India, the news item is extracted in para 6 above. The contents of ilre FIR lrave been noted in para,[2] and 3 above. The press release lras been noted in para 4 above.

20. Tlre news item sirnply publishes ilre fact of the raid conducted and 13 dance bar girls being apprehended. Tl^re nature of activity as per tlre FIR at tlre dance bar has been reported. sinrilar is the position with the news item published in the 3 otlrer newspapers.

21. lwoUld lriglrliglrt that tlre source on wlrich the publislrers acted was a proper source i.e. the police. Tlre 9th exception to Section 499 IPC is prima facie attrac[ed. There are no innuendos in the publications. A fact pertairring to an FIR being registered witlr reference to the activities fourrd to be carried out from Hotel Rajdoot as recorded in the FIR lras been publislred..Tlre FIR was made public by the police along witlr a press release. ';

22. Pertainir-rg to tlre liability, primarily a reporter is responsible for lris act of defamation and vicarious liability is fastened orrly on the printer, pr-rbrlislrer and editor of the newspaper as lreld by me irr rny judgtnent datecl 21'.g.200.[7] disposirrg of Crl.M.C. No.35/2005 'Mrs.Shobhana Bhartla '& Ors. vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr.'. Tlrus, unless the contrary is proved the persons declared as printer, publislrer and editcr of tlre newspaper wlro would be presumed to be responsible for tlre contents of tlre newspaper on tlre question whether any person otlrer tlran tlre printer, publisher and editor can be pro.secuted for a defamatory article, apar[ fronr the reporter, needs a few decisions to be noted: Crl. M.C. No. 2IL1'/ 07 & co nn.matte rs I Page 2L of 7.[7] ' (l) State of Maharashtr, AIR 1968 SC 110:- Tlre public prosecutor iiteO a cornplaint under section 500 lpc against four persons wlro were members of the Editorial Board of a Maratlri weel<ly nameb "Maharashtra,,. One of the accused, Sudlralcar Gopal Madane, had filed tlre declaration in the prescribed form under the Act describing himself as ilre editor, printer and publislrer of the newspaper. The particular copy of the Ma ha ras lrtra in wh ich the a lleged defamatory article appeared bore the name of one Madane as tlre printer, publisher and editor of tlre newspaper. lt also slrowed on the front page that the Editorial Board consisted of Madarre and tlrree other accused. The question arose whetlrer tlre members of Editorial Board could be prosecuted for defamatbry article. Adverting t-o Section 7, the Supreme Court held tlrat:-

. cannot be drawn againsl- tlre others who had Crl. M.C. N o.z]-j,I/ 07 & conn. matte rs Page2Z of 27,f * t not declared tlremselves as editors of the newspaper but it is also fair to leave thenr out because tlrey had no concern with tlre publislring of the article in question. On the whole therefore the order of disclrarge made by the learned single Judge appears to be proper in tlre circunrstances of tlre case and we see no reasorr to interfere." (ii[1] T.K.S.Muthukova v Hail C.H. Mohammad Kova, (1979) 2 SCC B:-Question before Supreme Court was whether tlre Chief Editor of a newspaper can be prosecuted for publication of a defanratory article. ln para 34 of the decision,,r Supreme'Court observed as under:-;

t is manifest that the peti'tioner lras miserably failed to prove either tlrat tlre appellant was tlre. editor of the paper or that he was per-forming tlre functiotrs, duties or sho u ld erirrg the responsibilities of the editor. lt is obvious tlrat a presumption under Sectiorr 7 of tlre Press Act could be drawn orrly if the person concerned was an editor withirr tlre meaning of Section 1 of I tlre Press Act. Wlrere however a person doesnotfu|fiItlieconditiorrsofSectionlof the Press Act and does not perform the functions of an editor wlratever may be his descriptionordesignation,theprovisionsof the Press Aci would have no application""" (iii)K,M.MathewvStateoflGrela&Anr''1992-: drif-1ffin tb prosecution of Chief, Editorofanewspaperforpublicationofa defa matory news a rticle, 5 u preme Co urt ' observed as utrder:- "9. In tlre instant case thqre is no averment agaitrsttlreChiefEdilorexcepttlremotive; attributedtohim.Eventhenrotivealleged is general and vague' Tlre cbnrplainant Crl.M.C.No.21,L1'lO[7] & conn'matters Pa'geZ[3] of 2-t,\y i J seen"ts to rely upot-t the presumption under Sectiorr 7 of ilre 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 name is prirrte-O as 'editor'as required under Section 5(1). Tlrere is a mandatory (ilrouglr rebuttable) presurnption that tlre person wlrose name is printed as 'Editor' is tlre editor of every portion of tlrat issue of the newspaper- of wlrich a copy is produced. Section 1(1") of the Act defines 'Editor' to mean 'the person wlro controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper'. Section 7 raises the presunrption in respect of a person wlro is named as the editor and printed as such on every copy o't the newspaper. TIre Act does not recognise any otlrer legal errtity for raising' tire presurnption. Even if tlre narre of tlre Chief Editor is prirrted in the newspaper, tlrere is no presumption against lrim under Section 7 of the Act. See State of Maharashtra v R.B. Clrcv'rdlrari, AIR 1968 SC 110; D.P, Mishra v l(amal Narain Sharma & Ors, AIR 1-970 SC 856; Narasingh Charan Mohanty tr Surendra Mohanty, AIR I9l4' SC 47; Haji C.H. Mohammad l(oya v T.K.S.M.A' Muthukoya, AIR I97g SC 154.

10. lt is important Lo state that for a Magistrate to talce cogl'lizance of the offence as against the Clrief Editor, tlrei-e must be Positive averments in the complairrt of l<nowledge of the objectiorrable clraracter of the matter' The conlplairrt in tlre instant case does not contain any suclr allegation. In the absence of suclr allegation, tlre Maqistrate was justified in directing tlrat the complaint so tar as it relates to tlre Clrief Editor could not Crl.M.C.No.21'Il/07 & conn.matters Page 24 cf.17 YF be proceeded with. To asl< tlre Chief Editor to undergo the trial of the case merely on tlre ground of tlre issue of process would be oppressive. No person slrould be tried witlrout a prima facie case. The view tal<en by tlre High Court is untenable. Tlre appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside."

(iv) Sardar Nihal Sirtoh v A('-q Das, 1983 CrLJ

777:- A learned Single Judge of ilris court viras considering wlrether the clrairnran and Executive Editor of a newspaper could be prosecuted for publication of a defamatorv article. Witlr reference to under:- Crl. N[4].C. No.ztL!/ 07 & co nn. matte rs Clrairma n, it was observed as "Needless to say that as Chairman of the Conrpany Shri Goenl<a can be held liable for the publication of tlre offerrding news items orrly if it is showrr ttrat he was somehow concerned witlr the pr-rblication of the defamatory news items. lt is lriglrly doubtfr-rl that he can be asl<ed to arrswer tlre clrarge of defamation merely, because lre lrappened to be tlre phairman of the Conrpany owning tlre nbwspaper without there being a ny fu rtlter evidence as reg a rds h is pa rticipation irr the actua I nranagement and administration of the affairs of the company. lnterrticn on the part of the accused to lrarm tlre reputation or the l<nowledge or reasonable belief that an imputatiorr will harm the reputation of tlre persons concernecJ is an essential ingredient of offence under 5. 400, IPC but suclr evidence. is totally missing in tlre instant case. Urrder tlre circumstances the impugned order as regards Slrri Goenl<a cannot be sustairred on this short ground." i Page 25 of 1l-7.,rkz a After referring io Section 3,,4,,5, 6 and 7 of tlre Press and Registration of Boolcs Act, J.867, the learned Judge added:- "However, it is difficult to draw such a presumption in tlre case of otlrer petitioners viz., Arun Shorie, petitioner No. 2 and A. p. Dlrar petitioner No. 4. Their names do not find place irr the declaration prirrted on the newspaper itself and there is no iota of evidence to show that tlrey are in any manner corrcerned witlr the collection, control or selection of the matter printed in tlr e n ewspa per. Th eir desig nations as Executive Editor/Editor of the Express News Service will rrot per se warrant an inference that they are in any way responsible for the selection of the material. An authority for tlris view may be found in the State of Malraraslrtra v. R. B. Chowdlrari, AIR 1968 sc 110."

23. From tlre afore-noted judicial pronouncement, it can safely be said tlrat besides persrns declared as editor, printer and publislrer of a newspaper, oniy such persons could be prosecuted for an action of defamation again:;t wlrom specific and clear allegations lrave been made in the cornplairrt that either he was iesporrsible for selection of tl'ie defamatory nratter or had personal lcrrowledge about the conterrts of tlre defamatory matter. ln additiorr, it must also be averred in tlre complairrt tlrat suclr person had the interrtion to lrarm or lrad krrowledge or reason to believe that the imputatiorr will harnr tlre reputation of the complairrant. The ctrairman or tlre trrarraging director of a company owning a newspaper is neith.er tlre editor, n0r the prirrter, nor tlre publisher and therefore no presumption can Crl.M.C.No.2tLI/07 & conn.matters Page26 of 7.7,d i\' I Lre draurn against the holcler of these offices even though they are, by reason of tlre office held by them' in charge of and iesponsible to the company for t6e conduct of its business,

24. Iclonotfindanysuc|rpIeac|ingsinthecompIaint againstVineetJain,MahinderMohanGuptaandDurbur Gangu|yandthusqUathemthecomplaintsareliab|etobe 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 DirectoroftheCompanypublishingthenewspaper.Dainik. Jagran' and Durbur Ganguly is the Joint Managing Director of thecompanypublishingthenewspaper'ThePioneer"onthe reason of the office lield by them,'Fhey cannot be made liable.

25. Qua tlre rest lhold that the news items contain no innuendos.AfactofanFIRbeingregisteredrruiththe contentsthereofhasloeenpubIished.T|repubIicationofthe newsitempertainstoamatterofpublicinterest.The pubticatrorrlsatrueanc|afaithfulreportofafact.I highlight that the reporters have not carried out any ' investigative journa lism'

26. The petitions are allowed' The complaints in each petition as also the summoning order are irnpugned quaslred '

77. No costs.,- - r"'-'{' -r: i"-1\*')' (PRADEEP NAr{Diln1bcl JUDGE October 10, 2011[1] ! dk Crl.M.C.No.2 1t'I107 & conn'matters Page}7 of27 YY