Summary
Summons in a criminal defamation complaint over newspaper articles on the authenticity of auctioned paintings were quashed against the Editorial Director and the journalists. There was no statutory presumption and no specific allegation against the Editorial Director, the Magistrate skipped the inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. mandatory for accused residing outside his jurisdiction, and a remand after more than a decade would serve no purpose.
Issues
- Whether an Editorial Director of the newspaper-owning company, not named as editor, can be summoned for defamation on a bare allegation that he oversaw the newspapers' content.
- Whether summons could issue against accused residing outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction without the inquiry or investigation under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.
- Whether the summoning orders against the authors of the articles were sustainable when the courts below had not considered each accused's article, and whether the matter should be remanded.
Provisions considered
- Sections 1 ('editor'), 5 and 7, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867The editor, defined as the person controlling selection of matter published, must be named on each copy, and Section 7 raises a rebuttable presumption against the person so named. No such presumption arises against an Editorial Director, who can be proceeded against only on specific allegations of his role. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 19.1, 19.2)
- Section 202(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Read with the words inserted by Act 25 of 2005: where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, inquiry or investigation before issuing process is mandatory. No such inquiry was held and only the complainant was examined, though all appellants resided in Mumbai or Kolkata and the complaint was filed in Bengaluru. (¶¶ 13, 13.3, 13.4, 19.3, 20)
- Sections 499 and 500, Indian Penal Code, 1860Defamation requires intent to harm, or knowledge that the imputation will harm, and an imputation capable of lowering the person's reputation in the estimation of others (Explanation 4). The complainant produced no witness to show such lowering of reputation. (¶¶ 13, 13.2, 20)
- Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of IndiaIn parting observations, the Court stressed that free speech is paramount but that the media must publish with caution, accuracy and fairness, in public interest and good faith. (¶ 21)
Held
- Unlike an editor, against whom Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act raises a presumption, there is no presumption against an Editorial Director. Such a person may be prosecuted for defamatory content only on specific allegations of his role in controlling selection of the matter published (K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham and Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel followed). (¶¶ 19.1, 19.2)
- The complaint only alleged that the Editorial Director, who held that post in the owning company and not in the individual newspapers, oversaw the publications. Such a broad, blanket statement could not justify summons, and the complaint was not maintainable against him. (¶¶ 19.2, 19.3)
- Where the accused resides outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction, the inquiry or investigation under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. before issuing process is mandatory and not an empty formality; Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar followed. Issuing summons after merely recording the complainant's sworn statement was a procedural irregularity. (¶¶ 13.3, 13.4, 19.3, 20)
- The trial court and the High Court had not considered the separate articles authored by each accused; the High Court discussed only one article. (¶ 20)
- Although such irregularities ordinarily warrant remand, the Court declined to remand. More than a decade had passed since the 2014 auction, there was no material of actual loss, witnesses were unlikely to be found, and a similar complaint by the same complainant had earlier been quashed. The summons and proceedings were quashed to meet the ends of justice. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's order, the summoning orders and the criminal complaint quashed insofar as the appellants are concerned.