Summons-case dismissal power and editor presumption under press law limit trial against a Chief Editor absent specific averments.

In a summons-case, a Magistrate may drop proceedings even after process has issued and the accused has appeared if the complaint on a plain reading does not disclose a prima facie offence against that accused. The statutory presumption under the Press and Registration of Books Act applies only to the person named as Editor, not to a Chief Editor. To proceed against a Chief Editor, the complaint must contain positive averments of knowledge of the objectionable material or responsibility for its publication; absent such pleadings, trial cannot be sustained. The SC held the High Court order unsustainable and protected the Chief Editor from being made to stand trial on the complaint as framed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a summons-case after process has been issued and the accused has appeared, the Magistrate has power to drop the proceedings if the complaint on its face does not disclose an offence against that accused; (ii) Whether the presumption under the Press and Registration of Books Act applies to a person described only as Chief Editor, and whether the complaint required positive averments of knowledge or responsibility to proceed against him.

Issue (i): Whether, in a summons-case after process has been issued and the accused has appeared, the Magistrate has power to drop the proceedings if the complaint on its face does not disclose an offence against that accused.

Analysis: The process issued by a Magistrate is an interim order and not a judgment. The commencement of trial under Chapter XX of the Code does not take away the Magistrate's judicial discretion to reconsider whether the complaint discloses any offence against the accused. If the complaint, on a plain reading, does not involve the accused in the alleged offence, the Magistrate is not bound to continue proceedings merely because summons has already been issued.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had jurisdiction to drop the proceedings against the Chief Editor where the complaint did not disclose a prima facie case against him.

Issue (ii): Whether the presumption under the Press and Registration of Books Act applies to a person described only as Chief Editor, and whether the complaint required positive averments of knowledge or responsibility to proceed against him.

Analysis: The statutory presumption is confined to the person whose name is printed as Editor as contemplated by the Act. The Act does not create a similar presumption for a Chief Editor. To proceed against such a person, the complaint must contain positive averments showing knowledge of the objectionable material or responsibility for its publication. In the absence of such allegations, compelling him to face trial would be unwarranted.

Conclusion: The presumption did not apply to the Chief Editor, and the complaint was insufficient to sustain proceedings against him.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was unsustainable, and the Chief Editor could not be made to stand trial on the complaint as framed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summons-case, a Magistrate may drop proceedings after process if the complaint does not disclose a prima facie case against the accused; and under the Press and Registration of Books Act, the statutory presumption attaches only to the named Editor, not to a Chief Editor, absent specific averments of knowledge or responsibility.

---