Chandan Mitra v. NCT of Delhi & Anr.

10. Tabassum D/o Siddharth Bhardwaj R/o 200, Lodhi Road ConrPlex, New Dellri.

11. Arrjali D/o surender Yadav R/o 4-703, seventh Floor, Kanclranjunga Apdrtrnent Dwarka, New Delhi

72. Maya sirrglr w/o Rajender Sirrglr R/o l-Block, Saurablr Vilrar, Jaitpur, Badarpur, New Delhi'

13. Reenu Saxerra, W/o Sarab Saxena, R/o 72J ' Sector 19, Pocl<et 111 Dwarl<a, New Delhi' Tlrese girls with tlreir gestures atrd tallcs were instigatlrrg the customers for the wrong deeds andt|recustomerSWeregettirrginstigatedtg involve in wrong deeds' Apart from us' Shri t- Crl. M.C. No.21'1L/ 07 & conn. nratters Rameslr Balrl, S/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, Shalcti Nagar, Delhi had also come to see ilre dance and tlrey were also slrocl<ed and angry to see the slrow witlr about 50 to 60 audience who were also watching the slrow. Out of,all these audience, most of tlrem were also instigated with tlre same vulgar feelings as we were. ln this reg'ard, police investigatiorr slrall be carriecl out against Shri Babbu l(alra wlrose full name is Man Molran l(alra S/o Slrri Kislran Lal l(alra and I have lranded over the two ticl<ets'wlrose humbers I have already given you alorrg with the two t500 denomination notes. Staterrrent heard and it is co rrect. t' '

3. An endo rsement was nr ade statenrent wlrich reads as under:beneath the ( "ACP lrad tlre information of Rajdoot Hotel that the owner Babbu l(alra and Prem l(alra are rutrnitrg a dance Bar in tlre Hotel where they serve cjrirrlcs and girls from differerrt cities of lrrdia perfornr obscene dances. where these girls witlr their obsce'ne gestures instigate the. customers. This information was brought to tlre l<rrowledge and secretly it was investigated and it was found to be correct. we the Raiding T'eam alongwitlrACP,InspectorjeetSinghSpeciaI Teanr, Inspector Raj Vir Singh, AATS/Crime ( Branclr apd Staff Sl Raj ' l(trmar, Sl Blragwati Prasad, sl Buddh Parkash, Asl Ravinder const. i,:3il'.'J"oRs,,'fff'iln::il r?l;i,'[%'f'1#;J] AATS Staff, S| Surinder Rana, AS| Sameer Singh, Const. Pardeep Hudda, Const'Sat Pal' Lady Sl PushapYadavandLadyCot'tst'Kry1la'48'Crime Branclr,LadyConst.Mul<eshNo'303DRP'Lady Const.Arrita No.2 947lCrine' Tlris team had already been called arrd instructed to develop on Crl.M.C.No. 211L107 & conn.matters PageT of 27 -Jo t. tlre information and the Police Statiorr of the area Jangpura Mathura Road was infornred 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 alongwith a Sta'ff.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/- each and were instructed to go irrto the Rajdoot Hotel and watch the dance and were further instructed that if any obscene activities are talcirrg place then witness Dilip l(umar would come out and would mal<e the instructed indication. Thereafter, all of us also tool< positiorr around Rajdoot l-lotel. At about

11.30 PM, on the irrdication given by the Witness Dilip l(unrar the whole Raidirrg Party went into Bar Hall of tlre Rajdoot Hotel i'e' Eldorado Restaurant wlrere 13 girls wlro were dancing turn by turn on the stage and were inal<ing obscene gestures to instigate the people sittirrg in the Bar Room ancl Babbu l(alra wlro was also instigating tlrem to perform such obscene gestures were tal<enundercustody.TlreComplainantRajeev. l(unrar clraudhary s/o Ram Veer singh recorded lris statement and case uls 2941709134 IPC and u/s B of ITP Act was registered' Tlrat Case may be registered '" 4'Thepolicereleasedapressre|ease,whichreadsaS under:-,,witlr tlre arrest of 13 bar girls caught while pertorrning obscene, sex provocative' semi-nude iloor- dan-ing shows at Rajdoot Hotel' Matlrura no-0, last nigt-.,t, sleuths oi crirne branclr Deliri Police have been able to smash a well organizeci' scandalous racket being run by the o-wners of the saidtrote|wheretlredancebargirlsfromBombay danceopenIyenticedia||urethevisitingguestsfot. Crl.M.C. No.2 IIL/07 & conn'nratters I sexual acts while dressed in allurirrg and scanty dresses. One of the partners of said hotel namely Manmohan @ Babbu l(alra lras also been arrested for abetting, aiding these dance bar girls to achieve tlreir illegal designs. An information was received at crime branclr that tlre owners of Rajdoot Hotel are flourislring there business by organizing floor dance shows where dance girls allure customers through obscene gestures, words, actions, wilfully exposing their oerson to attract the attention of spectators/guests for the purpose of prostitution. For tlris purpose tlre lroteliers facilitates them by provid ing accom modation at their hotei for carrying out their illegal, nefarious and antisocial activities in the garb of floor dance playing sexy songs/tunes. The hotel managenrent charge each guest {500. This information was developed b1r the officers of Anti Robbery Cell crime branch, specifically entrusted witlr this tasl<. on verification through secret sources the information was found to be autlrentic. The hotel owners used extra ordinary vigilant system using Hi-tech security/monitoring gadgets ihstalled at t5e various locatiorrs of hotel [o ward off any checks olr their anti social activities. They lrave lrired a number of rrrusclemen, bouncers, e><tra guards to inform tlrem.I A raid was organized on a specific tip off at the premises of hotel Eldrado d'atrce bar, under tlre supervision of A.c.P. P.P. Singlr c_omprisirrg the seiected staff of crime branc[6], after the clecoy gavetlrepredeterminedsignal"l3dancinggirlsi of tt-,e bar cum dancing hall of Eldrado in turn were detained along with Manmohan @ Babbo l(alra a partner in tie said hotel' A case vide F.l.R.No.391/06 dated 4l5106 uls 2941L09134 l.P'C' & B LT.P' Act has been registered at P'5' Nizarnuddin. Sufficierrt number of lady police Crl.M.C.No.21,1'1'/07 & conn'matters Pageg of 27 { \v officers were also mefftber of ilre raiding party. ["ft]'ff;':? fil:: m;:.;*h,[3] ii;; ru"il#

5. rt is appgrent urat flre nratter was of pubric.o,..,..r,., and trat was tre reason why the porice rereased a press release. The inciderrt was pubrished in various newspapers the day next i.e. 5.6.2006 and since ilre above_captioneci petitio's pertain to news pubris'ed in 4 newspapers, we reproduce ilre contents ilrereof. 6' In ilre newspaper 'Trre Tirnes of rndia, it was repofted as under:- " Girrs, Flotel Owner ruaOneOlvew Derhi: An iilegar dance bar berng run in a south Derhi rroter was busted ov.iin.'u branch on saturday'.F.grrteen persons - 13 dance bar girrs and one of 're rroter owners - were arrested on severat charges, ranging frorn oOscenity i; imnroral trafficking and afr""t,r,u,it. " The accused girrs were ateg6dl), caught dancing in a scantiry crad state.,,A raib was conducted on ilre premises of Er Dorado dan." -b.r in uotei Rajdoot after a signar from an,,iJur.over cop, wlro had been present inside. The girls were caugrrt red-handed," said Tejendra Luthra, DCp: (crirne branclr). "We also arrested Manmofian alias Babbu Karra, wrro is a part'eiin ilre hoter, " ' he added.: An FIR was registered at the Nizarnuddin porice statio' under tlre rerevant sectio's of the rp'c and the lmnloral Traffic (prevention) Act on Sunday. The girls were later released on bail. Police said ilre girrs were aged between 20 and 30 and rraired from rower 'rioore-crass families. while four of ilrenr are from Derrri, two each are Crl.M.C.No.2J,I[1],/07 & conn.nratters p age J.0 of 27 I )t a fronr Bihar, Noida and punjab and one each from l(oll<ata and Allalrabad. The last woman, tlre only nrarried person among tlre girls, said slre was a lrotel guest..Police suspect tlrat her husband was also involved in the racl<et. He was detained for questioning. During interrogation, it was revealed that some of tlre accused girls were employed in Mumbai dance bars but after those establishments were slrut down they were forced to slrift base to the Capital. Crirne branch officials were tipped-off about tlre lrotel's flourislrirrg business on account of floor dance shows. Rajdoot Hotel lrad apparently been lrosting clandestine shows for their clients since the past 'six years or more, clrarging t500 as entry fees. Inside Eldorado bar the dance girls "lured custon'rers with obscene gestures". The owners of the lrotel allegedly facilitated tlre dance bar girls with rooms wlrere they indulged in flesh trade, apart from providing tlre dance floor. Furtlrer irrvestigations revealed that the hotel owner had an elaborate system in place to avoid detection by the police. "Sopltisticated gadgets used for security rnonitoring were installed at strategic points to alert tlre hotel administration at tlre slightest hint of trouble," a senior of'ficial said.. "Th;t apart, they had lrired several bouncers nruscle men and additional security guards to keep tlrem inforrned of any lawenforcement activity in and around the hotel," added the official. Undercover cops entered tlre bar as guests late on Saturday niglrt, and sigrraled the raiding police team around 11.30'pl1l, after the "erotic dancing" began. Within r-nitrltes, the lrotel was surrounded by uniformed policellen.'" Crl. M.C. No. 2L[1],I/ 07 & conn. nratters Page IL of 27 t 1,. )1 I

7. In the newspaper 'Dainik Blraslcar' it was published as under:- "13 G|RLS |N\/OLVED tN FLESH -[R,ADE ARRESTED Bhaslcar News. New Delh i, 4 June, Delhi Police Crime Branch has arrested 13 girls who were in tlre fleslr trade fronr Rajdoot Hotel on Mathura Road,, Tlre Police lrave said on Saturday night the Crime Branch raided Rajdoot Hptel and arrested 13 girls. Tlrey said tlre ages of all tlre 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 working irr Rajdoot Hotel and under the cover of doing massage, started worlcing in the fleslr trade, The Police lrave arrested one middleman in connection with tlris. His name is Manmohan."

tlre wee hours today, police said. Actirrg on a tip-off, Dellri Police sleuths raided Hotel Rajdoot near Nizamuddirr and arrested Babbu l(alra, olle of the partners of the hotel, and 13 bar dancers nrost of tlrenr brought here from Mumbai. Tlre girls were arrested on charges of performing obscene and provocative Crl.M.C.No.2III/07 & conn.matters Page 12 ol'17 )s t sexual acts, wlrile Kalra is being charged with aidirrg and abetting ilrem,. police said. Most of the girls lrave been brouglrt from Mumbai, wlrere ilrey were worr<ing in bars before the Malrarashtra Government closed them d'own, police added"

9. Tlre next day i.e, orr 06.06,2006 in the newspaper'The Pioneer' it was furtherpublislred as under:- "Ear Glrls bacl< on Rajdoot Floor I-lotel earns more from dance bars than room occupancy Neeraj Chauhan New Delhi The 13 girls, who wei-e caluglrt wlrile darrcing, serving drinks and enticirrg guests at Rajdoot Hotel on Sunday were bacl<, in business at tlre hotel's Eldorado, bar cn Monday. According to a senior police o'l=ficer, failing to have a brisl< business, the three star-rated hotel served everythirrg - girls, wine and nrusic against provisioris of licensirrg act. More tlran 90 percent business of the lrotel was from dance bar girls, as room occLlpancy rate was very low. Rajdoot hotel is the only three star lrotel in Dellri wlrere floor slrows tal<e place. Tlre officer also informed tlrat all these girls are frotn lower rrriddle class families and most of thern are unfflarried or divorcees. They lrad worked in Mumbai bars earlier and l<now lrow to attract customers. They were bei6g paid T10,000/- per month apart frorn wh;rt they get orr the dance floor.: Earlier 79 girls were arrested by Crime Branch froin tlris lrotel irr 1988. Manmohan l(alra alias Babbu (50) runs tlris lrotel in partnership with his brother Prem Crl.M.C.No.2tIL/07 & conn.nratters Page L[3] of '!-7 )6 l(alra but Prem, has notlring to do with Eldorado bar. Tlre lrotel managed to bool< only seven to eight rooms on a normal day and Kalra was unable io pay the salary to its B0 staff. He used to run two shows claily for two lrours each from B:30 pm till rnidnight.. Entry ticl<et here was T500 out of which t250 went tow;ards entertainment tax. Liquor was too served in the bar and was ver,i expensive - a bottle of beer cost {485; 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 hotel rooms itselt and big custorners were given a'better deal. The officer says, "lf a customer lilcecl any girl ancl wanted her to dance again olr lris favourite song therr he was charged t[2],500 for that particular song". Babbu himself used to prompt girls to'mal<e eye contact witlr the customers so tlrat they throw more n'roney. Every show yielded over TOne laklr to Babbu. He kept 50 percent lrinrself, 10 percent was given to tlre waiters and bouncers and rest was given to thr: other staff. Tlre girls used to lceep solrle amount front j the tip money. According to tlre officer, Babbu himself lived in roonl no.318 with a Russian girl. He told the police tlrat thi: girls tlremselires contacted'lrirri. Most of the girls are itr tlre age group of 20 to 24 except one Neelu (name clranged) who used to design dresses for tlre shows. Four girls are from Mumbai apd were staying in lrotel rooms. Rest of these girls are from areas like cR Parl<, Dwarl<a, Rolrini, Lodlri Road and Laxmi Nagar of Delhi' The Dellri girls also used to stay in hotel rooms and indulge iri prostitution. Babbu usecl lri-tech monitorintg gadgets lilce ccTV cameras arrd magic eyes whiclr Crl. M.C. fJo.[2] II1'l 07 & co nn, matters Page L[4] of 27 were;".monifo.red from Room No.512 and 513 ', lrotel and if a local cop visited there then the was clranged," 10., On 05.06.2006, in tlre newspaper,Dainil< Jagran, news was published in Hindi and its translation reads under:- "L[3] Ear Girls arrested from l-lotel New Delhi, JS. Thirteen Bar Girls, dancing in provocative. and semi-nude condition, arrested from Rajdoot Hotel at Mathura Road, by the CrimeBranchofDelhiPoliceonSaturdayrright. PoIicglrasa|soarrestedMatrmohanaliasBablut l(alra., a partner of tlre Hotel. With these arrests, police lras ' unearthed a raclcet of bringing Murlrbai Bar'Dancers to Dellri and mal<ing them to dan'ce in Hotels: tl It lras been reported, that"police lrad received a secret information that the Bar Girls, brought fronr Mumbai, are being used to lure the. custQ].rpeFS.,for prostitutiorr by their stimulating dancbs in'th'e Rajdoot Hotel. For this purpose,,, tlre Hotel is providing the rooms and otlrer facilitiesto'itscustomeri|lega|ly.Forreaclring on tlre danice floor, for obscene dancing with; m usic, tlre. Hotel is clr'a rg i,ng Ru pees Five Hundred fro.m each customer. I Police lrad information tlrat to avoid any kind of. raid, Hotel had got installed lrighly sophisticatecl Cameras ar;id otlrer equipmerrts at various places in tlre Hotel including Entry Gate. lt was also learnt tlrat Hotel owner lras deputed Bouncers, Wrestlers a,pd additional security guards to stop d11!r' raidirr$ staff at the gate itself' This irrf-oimation'was found correct when these were corrfirmed,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 Crl.M.C. No.2 1'1L/07 & conn. matters Page L[5] of 77 't'rd,"tt#, the t-up I the of SC ars )n alongwitlr Manmohan. A case under various sections for indulging in the prostitution has been registered at Police Station Nizamr,rddin. Tlre investigations of case lrave been entrustecl to Inspector Ran Singlr. On enquiry, it has been learnt that these Bar Girls belong to poor families and they are irr this professiorr, since tlreir minor a age, due to compelling circunrstances, The Bar Girls, in the age of 20 to 30 years,'are in flris professiorr for years together. However, the Fatiala Court lras grarrted Bail io these Bar Girls." On 27.6.2006 as a follow up story in the newspapel 'Dainil< Jagaran'a further publicatiorr was made in Hindi, translated version thereof reads as under:- "Munrbai Bar Girls enticinq tlre lrearts of Delhians Pradeep l(umar Sinqh, 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 enticirrg the general public but also beconring a headaclre for Delhi Police. The number of girls reaching from Mumbai to Delhi can be presumed with the fact that more tlran one and a half dozen girls have been arrested by the police within a period of one montlr. As per soLirces, tlre numbers of Lhese Girls lrave reached in hundreds, who are staying at Five Star Hotels, l(othis and Farm Houses. It is rrvell l<nown that lrundred of girls from Bihar, Uttar Pradeslr, Madhya Pradesh, Gujrat and Delhi were earning from Dance Bars at Mumbai, but the closing of Dance Bars in Mumbai, disturbed tlreir routine and tlrey get their new shelter at Dellri. There is another reason belrind this, tlrat most of the customers stayirrg witlr these girls in Dance Bars arrd Five star Hotels have connection witlr Delhi also. some have tlreir business in Delhi arrd some otlrers used to visit Delhi often Crl.M.C.No.2 ttt/07 & conn.matters Page L[6] of 27 ( )f for their business. Tlre geograplrical condition of Dellri also herps them. sorne days back, the 1 crime Branclr of Dellri police had ariested 11 Ba r Girls from Rajdoot Hotel of soutlr Dellri in a ra.id. I All tlrese Dancers were enticirrg ilre public of Delhi after the closure of Dance Bars in Mumbai. Arrests have been made from Greater Kailaslr, Lajpat Nagar and Sarojini Nagar areas also. Anotlrer Bar Dancer of Munrbai was arrested with ' Raju Sansi,. a notorious Banl< Dacoit, by the Special staff of Soutlr District, but she was released as she had no crinrinal records. lt is surprising that Bar Girls have made connection witlr crim ina ls a lso. These crinr in a ls have connection witlr Mumbai also. As per police, it is a matter of concern. Tlre garrgs of criminals carr use these lucrati\/e girls for l<idrrapping, loot etc. crimes. Tlreir Company is givirrg double benefits to crinrinals. The Conrpany of girls gives them easy way to get slrelter and also in spreading their network. Police lras infornration of all these incidents, but tlrey lresitate to nab them in the absence oF evidence. A.ccording to a senior officer, d espite tlre d isrn issa l of one Su b- Inspector of Crime Branch in tlre rnatter of Dance BarcasearrdPo|iceComnrissioner'sI<eepingitin the category of an organized crime, the Station House Officers are optirrg to close tlreir eyes from this side Hite-outs of middlemen: Besides the posh colonies of Greater l(ailaslr, Defence Colony, South Ex, Saket PVR, Vasant Vilrar, Vasant Kunj i and Connauglrt Place, facility of dealing i:, ava ila trle on rrrobile plrones a lso. After firralization of deal, tlre Bar Girls are dropped and piclced-up irr luxurious vehicles."

12. Alleging tl'rat the afore-noted news items vve!-e defamatory of Hotel Rajdoot and its owner, Sh.wlanmohar',' l(alra, the stated owner of the hotel filed complairrts before Crl.M.C.No.2 III|A[7] & conn.matters PageIT of27 1y'' "'\ -', 9o' I the learned ACMM alleging that the accused named in the conrplaints lrad committed offences punislrable under Section 49.91500 tpC.

13. I reproduce in a tabular fornr the name of the accused as also tlre designatiorr and the concenred petition filed by the person concerned in respect to the 4 criminal complaints filed by respondent No.2 pertaining to the news itenrs published irr the Times of India, Dainik Bhasl<ar, The Pioneer and DainilcJagran. lt reqds as under:- (A) Newspaper- THE TIMES OF INDIA Name of Accused Designation PetiLion No. Vineet Jain Ma naging D irector Petit.ioner in Cr|. M.C. 2rr[1],,2007 Arindanr Sen Gupta Editor Petitioner No. 1 in Crl.M.C. 27 0412007 Balraj Arora Printer and Publisher (Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. ) Petitioner No. in Crl.M.C. 27 0412007 (B ) N ewspa per- DAIN ll( B HAS l(AR Narne of Accused Petition No. Ramesh Chander Agarwal Crl. M.C. No. 2171,/ 07 & co nn, n'iatte rs Editor Crl. M.C. 2863i204 Page LB of 2V Crl.M.C. No.21,11/07 & conn.matters Y) Page Is of )t i

(C) Newspaper- DAtNil( IAGARAN

Nanre of Accused Deisgnation Petition No. Ma lr ind er Moharr Gupta Clrairnlan cum Managing Director (Petitioner Crl. M.C. LBZ/2OOB). Sanjay Gupta Editor Petitioner No. 1 Crl. M.C. 1052/2008 Pradeep l(umar Reporter Petitioner No.2 Crl. M.C. 105 2/2 008

(D) Newspaper- PIONEER

Name of Accused r Desig natiorr Petition No Durbar Ganguly Joint Managing Director Petiiioner Crl. M.C.308?-12007;, Clrandan Mitra Printer a nd publislrer PeLitioner Crl. M.C.3083/2007 Marroj CG Reporter, PTI Petitioner in Crl. M.C.122412008 \t/

14. Defamation has been defined as a false statement which lras tlre tendency to disparage the good nerme 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) Ma l<ing or publish irrg a ny iin putation concerning any person.

(ii) Suclr irnputation must have been made by words either written or spol<en or by visible represerrtation.,:

(iii) Suclr imputation must [;e nrade with the intention to cause lrarm or witlr tlre l<nowledge or lraving reasons to believe tlrat it will harm the reputation of tlre person concerrred.

15. Petitioners contend that apart from tlre reporter, the editor, printer and publisher would be liable if a scandalous publication relates to a newspaper and additiorrally would urge that if a newspaper trutlrfully reports a news itent, pertaining to a fact whiclr is of public interest, nobody can be prosecuted for the offence of defamation

16. The, complainant alleges that'the news items are per se defamatory and that all accused would be liable. Il. A fair reporting pertaining to a matter of public Concern, without insinuations and innuendos i.e. a news itenr containirrg statements of true facts is not actionable for the offerrce of criminal defamation.

18. I have a relool< at the netivs rr:ports. They have bee.n extracted by me in paras 6 to 11 above. Crl. M.C.No.2 1'1I/07 & conn.matters Page 2O of 27 ). t l,/

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

20. The news item simply publishes tlre fact of the raid conducted and 13 dance bar girrs being apprehended. Tl-ie nature of activity as per the FIR at tlre dance bar has been reported. sirnilar is the position with the flews itern publislred in tlre 3 otlrer newspapers i 2r. I would lriglrlight that tlre source on wrrich tr'r.e publishers acted was a proper source i.e. the police. Tlre 9th exception to Section 499 IPC is prirna facie attracLed. There are no innuendos in the publications. A fact pertaining io an FIR being registered with reference to the activities fourrd to be carried out from Hotel Rajdoot as recorded in the FIR lras been publislred. The FIR was made public by the police along with a press release.

22. Pertaining to tlre liability, primarily a reporter is responsilcle for lris act of defamation and vicai-.ious liability is fastened only on the printer, pubrlisher and editor of the newspaper as held by me in nry judgment datecl zJ,S.2OA[7] disposirrg of Crl.M.C. No.35/2005 'Mts.Shobhana Bhartia t Ors. vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr.'. Tltus, unless tlre contrary is proved the persons declared as printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper who would be presumed to be responsible for tlre contents of tlre newspaper on the question whether any person other tharr the printer, publisher and editor can be prosecuted for a defamatory article, apart fronr the reporter, needs a few decisions to be noted:- Crl. M.C. No. 21"L1"/ 07 & conn. matters Page 21 of L[7] ) t \t[4],/ "(i) 9tut" o_f Muhoruthtro, R.B. Clro*dhuri, AIR 1968 SC 110:- Tlre puOtic prosec,tor filed a cornplaint under section 500 lpc against four persons wlro were members of the Editorial Boarcl of a Maratlri weel<ly named,,Maharashtra,,. One of tlre accused, sudrrakar Gopar Madane, had fired tlre declaration in the prescribed form under the Act describing himself as ilre editor, printer and publisher o_f the newspaper. The particurar copy of the M a lra rasrrtra in wh icrr the a ileged defamatory article appeared bore the name of one Madane as the printer, publisher and ediior of tlre newspaper. lt also slrowed on the front page that tlre Editorial Boarcj consisted of Madarre and tlrree other accused. The question arose whether tlre members of Editorial Board could be prosecuted for defamatory article. Adverting to. Section 7, the Supreme Court held tlrat:- "7. The term 'editor' is defined irr the Act to trean a person wlro controls the selection of the matter that is publislred in a newspaper. Wlrere there is mentioned an editor is a person who is responsible for selection of the material. Sectiorr 7 raises the presunrption in respect of such a person. The name of that person has to be printed on tlre copy of tlre newspaper and in the present case. tlre name of Madane admittedly was printed as the Editor of the Maharashtra in the copy of tlre lvlaharashtra. wlriclr contained tlie defanratory article. The decla ration in Form I which has been produced before us shows tlre naffle of M ada ne not on ly as tlre printer a nd publisher but also as tlre editor. ln our opinion tlre presumption wili attaclr to Madane as lraving selected tlre material for publication in the newspaper. lt may not be out of place to note tlrat Madane admitted tlrat he had written this article. ln the. circunrstances not only the presumption cannot be drawn agai'nsl: the others who had Crl. M.C. No. 211"1/ 07 & co n n.matte rs Page22 of 2 not declared tlremselves as editors of the newspaper.but it is also fair to leave them out because they had no concern with tlre publislring of the article in question. On the wlrole 'therefore the order of disclrarge made by the learned single Judge appears.to be proper in the circurnstances of the case and we see no reasorr to interfere."

(ii) T.K.5.Muthuko_va v HaiiC.H. Mohammad

Ko-va, (1979) 2 SCC B:-Question before Supreme Court was wlrether the Chief Editor of a newspaper can be prosecuted for pukjtication of a defamatory article. In para 34 of the decision, Suoreme Court observed as under:i

""

(iii) K.M. Mathew v State of Kerela & Anr, ]-,992 crit_J:ng. In relation to prosecution of clrief, Editor of a newspaper for publication of a defamatorynewsarticle,suprerreCourt observed as under:- "g. ln the instant case tlrere is no averment i. agairrst tlre clrief Editor except tlre motive attributedtolrim.Event|renrotivea||eged is general arrd vague' Tlre cbmplainant Crl.M.C.No.2tII/07 & conn.matters Pagel[3] of 2v {J e:b l seerns to rely upon the presumption under Sectiorr 7 of tlre press and Registration of Bool<s Act, 1867 ('ilre Act'). But Section z of the Act lras no applicability for a person who is simply named as 'Chief Editor,. The presumption under Section 7 is only against tlre person whose name is prirrte:d as ': 'editor'as required under Section 5(1). Tlrere is a nrandatory (tlrouglr rebuttable) presumption tlrat the person whose name is printed as 'Editor' is tlre editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of wlriclr a copy is produced. Section 1(l) of tlre Act defines 'Editor' to mearr,the llerson who controls the selection of the matter i tlrat is published in a newspaper'. Section 7 raises the presunrption in respect of a person who is named as the editor and printed as such on every copy o'f tlre newspaper. Tlre Act does not recognise any otlrer lega I errtity for ra ising tlre presumption. Even if tlre name of the Chief Editor is printed in the newspaper, tlrere is no presumption against lrim under Section 7 of the Act. See State of Maharashtra v: R.B. Chowdhari, AIR 1968 SC 110; D.P. i Mishra v l(amal Narain Sharma & Ors, AIR 1-970 SC 856; Narasinglr Charan Mohanty rr Surendra Mohanty, AIR !974 SC 47; Haji C.H. Molrammad l(oya v T.l<.S.M.A. Mutlrukoya, AIR 1979 SC 154.

10. lt is important to state that for a Magistrate to talce cognizance of the offence as agairrst the Chief Editor, tlrere nrust be positive averments in the complairrt of l<nowledge of the, objectionable clraracter of the matter. The conlplairrt in tlre instant case does not contain any suclr allegation. ln the absence of such allegation, tlre Magistrate was justified in directing that the complaint so far as it relates to tlre Clrief Editor could not Crl. l!.C. No.2 1.1.1"/ 07 & conn.matte rs ( l be proceeded with. To asr< ilre chief Editor to undergo tlre trial of ilre case merely on the ground of the issue of process would be oppressive. No person slrould be tried witlrout a prima facie case. The view taken by tlre lligh Court is untenable. Tlre appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Higlr Court is set aside.,, !Y)*,1983 crLJ 777:- A learned singre Judge or tnis cour[ wars considering whether the clrairnran and Executive Editor of a newspaper courd be prosecuted for publication of a defanratory article. With reference to Clrairman, it was observed as under:- "Needless to say that as Clrairman of the Company Shri Goenlca can be held liable for the publication of ilre offerrding news items only if it is shown that lre was somehow concerned witlr the purblication of the defanratory news items. lt is lriglrly doubtful tlrat he can be asked to answer the clrarge of defamation merelSr. because lre happened to be the Chairman of the Conrpany owning tlre newspaper without there being a ny fu rtlr er evid ence as regards his participation in the actual management and administration of the affairs of the company. lrrtention on the part of the accused to harm the reputation or the lcnowledge or reasonable belief that an imputatiorr will lrarm the reputation of th e persons co n cer;n ecl is a n essentia I ingredient of offence under S. 400, IPC but such evidence. is totally missing in the instant case. Under the circumstances the impugned order as regards Slrri Goenka cannot be sustained on this short ground." )l Crl. M.C.No.2 1,1,I/ 07 & conn.matters \1 After referring to Section,3,,4,, 5, Press and Registration of Boolcs learned Judge added:- 6 and 7 of the Act, 1867, the

23. "However, it is difficult to draw such a presurnption irr tlre case of other petitioners viz., Arun Shorie, petitioner N o. 2 and A. p. Dlrar petitioner No. 4. Their names do not find place in the declaration printed on the newspaper itself and there is no iota of evidence to show that tlrey are in any manner concerned wiilr the collection, control or selection of ilre matter- printecJ in tlre newspaper. Their designations as Executive Editcr/Editor of the Express News Service will rrot per se warrarrt 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 Maharashtra v. R. B. Chorrvdlrari, AIR 1968 sc 110." From the afore-noted judicia,l pronouncement, it can safely be said tlrat besides persf,lrs declared as editor. printer and publislrer of a newspaper, oniii such persoris could be prosecuted for an action of defamation again:;t wlrom specific and clear allegations lrave been made in tlre cornplairrt that either he was responsible for select!orr of the defamatory matter or had personal lcrrowledge abgut tf'e contents of the defanratory matter. In addition, it must aiso be averred in tlre complaint tlrat suclr perison had !he interrtioh to harm or had knowledge or reason to belie';e that the irnputatiorr will harm tlre reputation of the complainant. The chairman or tlre nianaging directcr of a company owning a newspaper is neither tlre ediior, nor the therefore no presumption can J, printer, nor the publisher and Crl. M.C. No. 2L11"/ 07 & co trn. nratte rs Page 26 of 't[7] 1f tl Lre drawn.against the holder of these offices even though they are, by reason of tlre.office held by them, in charge of andresponsibletothecompanyfortheconductofits business

24. Idonotfindanysuchpleadingsinthecomplaint against Vineet Jain, Mahinder Mohan Gupta and Durbur Gangulyandthusquathemthecomp|aintsareliabletobe quashed on the sole ground that merely because Vineet Jain is the managing director of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., Mahincler Mohan Gupta is tlre Chairman-cum-Managlng DirectoroftheCompanypubIishingthenewspaper,Dainik Jagran' and Durbur Garrguly is the Joint Managing Director of the company publishing the newspaper 'The Pioneer" on the reason of the office held by them,'they cannot be made liable

25. QuattrerestIlro|dthatthenewsitemscontainno innuendos.AfactofanFIRbeingregisteredwiththe contents thereof has been published. Tlre publication of the newsitempertainstoamatterofpub|icinterest.The pub|icatiot.t|satrueanc|afaithfuIreportofafact.l hiqhlight that the reporters have not carr"ied ot'tt any ' i nvesti gatilie journalism''

26. The petitions are allowed' The complaints in each petitiorr as also the summoni'ng order are irnpugned q uashed.

27. No costs. I "_J I ' i- 3 r'":1' ttl;:ii*'jl ( PRAD EEP hlAl'*t D iln1bcl ' jttDGE Octclhen L0, 201-1 dk Crl.M.C.No.2 1"1\/07 & conn'matters PageT[7] of27