TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant, described as Chief Editor, could be treated as an editor for the purpose of drawing the statutory presumption under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. (ii) Whether the alleged corrupt practice under section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was proved on the basis of the speech and the cartoon published in the newspaper.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant, described as Chief Editor, could be treated as an editor for the purpose of drawing the statutory presumption under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.
Analysis: The term "editor" under section 1(1) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 means the person who controls the selection of matter published in the newspaper. The statutory presumption under section 7 attaches only to the person shown as editor and is rebuttable. The evidence showed that another person was printed and declared as editor, that he controlled the editorial staff and policy, and that the appellant's designation as Chief Editor was merely ornamental. There was no pleading or proof that the appellant controlled selection of published matter or performed editorial functions, and the presumption could not be extended merely because his name appeared as Chief Editor.
Conclusion: The appellant could not be treated as the editor for the purposes of section 7, and no statutory presumption arose against him.
Issue (ii): Whether the alleged corrupt practice under section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was proved on the basis of the speech and the cartoon published in the newspaper.
Analysis: A charge of corrupt practice must be specifically pleaded and proved by clear, cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. As the appellant was not proved to be the editor, constructive knowledge of the newspaper items could not be attributed to him. The speech was not proved by reliable independent evidence, its extract was capable of a political and figurative explanation, and the material did not establish an intention to promote hatred or enmity between classes of citizens. As to the cartoon, there was no affirmative proof that it was published with the appellant's knowledge or consent before publication. Mere receipt of the newspaper and the appellant's designation were insufficient to establish liability.
Conclusion: The alleged corrupt practice was not proved against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The election could not be set aside on the basis of the materials relied upon, and the challenge to the appellant's election failed.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumption under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 applies only to a person who is in law and in fact the editor, meaning the person controlling selection of published matter, and a charge of corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be established by specific pleading and proof beyond reasonable doubt, with knowledge or consent proved affirmatively where required.
TaxTMI 
