Statutory presumption of publication responsibility under the Press law barred defamation process against a managing editor at the threshold.

In a defamation prosecution based on a newspaper report, the Court held that the statutory presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 attached to the person shown as editor, printer and publisher, and resident editor where they had expressly ed responsibility for the publication. On that record, the applicant could not be fastened with criminal liability merely because he was Chairman and Managing Editor, and the prosecution could not be sustained against him at the threshold. As the threshold issue was decided in his favour, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the plea based on the fourth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution for defamation arising from a newspaper report, the applicant who was the Chairman and Managing Editor could be proceeded against when the persons shown as printer and publisher, editor and resident editor had themselves accepted responsibility for the publication, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 could be invoked against them so as to exclude the applicant at the threshold.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 raises a rebuttable presumption against the person whose name is printed as editor, and the scheme of the Act recognises responsibility of the editor, printer and publisher, and the resident editor where the facts so show. The record showed that accused nos. 2 to 4 had specifically sworn that they were the printer and publisher, editor of all editions, and resident editor of the Pune edition, and had treated themselves as responsible for the publication. In those circumstances, the presumption under Section 7 attached to them and there was no basis to invoke the same presumption to fasten criminal responsibility on the applicant merely because he was the Chairman and Managing Editor. Since the first issue itself was answered in favour of the applicant, it was unnecessary to decide the second issue relating to the fourth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion: The prosecution could not be sustained against the applicant at the threshold and the process issued against him was liable to be quashed.

---