# HAJJ C.H. MOHAMMAD KOYA v. T. K. S. M. A. MUTHUKOYA - **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 664 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1978-09-12 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 12 and 865 E of 1978 - **Bench:** S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P. N. SHiNGHAL - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hajj-c-h-mohammad-koya-v-t-k-s-m-a-muthukoya-7524 - **Pages:** 37 ## Headnote Representation of People Act 1951-Sec. 123(3)(3A)-Publication of n1aterial pron1oting hatr'ed between citizens-Seeking votes on religious and communal grounds-Standard of proof-Beyond reasonable doubt of preponder~ ance of probabilities-What constitute.s<--How to be proved. Press and Registration of Books Act 1861-Sec. 7-Presun1ption-Meaning of Editor-Obiecl of the Act. In the General Election to the ·Legislative Assembly of Kerala in March 1977 the petitioner and the appellant were the contesting candidates from Malappuram constituency. The Appellant was declared elected by polling 56,276 votes defeating the petitioner who secured 39,362 votes. The petitioner filed an election petition alleging that the appellant had committed various corrupt practices falling within the ambit of section 123(3)<(3A) and (4) of the Representation of People Act 1951. The main allegation was that the appellant was the Chief Editor of Malayalam daily paper called 'Chandrika' which was the official organ of the Muslim League. According to the petitioner the paper contained articles, extracts of speeches and cartoons which tended to ask the muslims to vote for the appellant on religious and communal grounds and also pron1ted ill-will and hatred between two classes of citizens, namely, the Janasangh and the Muslim. League. At the hearing, the petitioner confined his case only to the corrupt practices alleged by him under section 123(3A). The petition was contested by the appellant. He took the stand that he made no speech which offended section 123(3A) of the Act, nor was he aware of any of the offending articles or cartoons published in Chandrika prior to the election. He denied that he was an editor of Chandrika and admitted that he was the Chief Editor and, that too, only in name.1 He denied that he had to do any thing with the editorial work of Chandrika or the publication of the speeches. The High Court held that the petition was maintainable. According to the High Court, the appellant was really the editor of the paper and the presumption under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 would apply. Allowing the appeal the Court, llELD : The object of the Press Act is to regulate pnnting presses and newspapers in order to preserve copies of newspapers and books. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits and uncertainties of liabilities, it was considered necessary to choose one of the persons from the staff and make him liable for all the articles or 1natters to be published in the paper so that any person aggrieved may sue only the person so named under the provisions of Press Act and a litigant is relieved from the necessity of making a fishing or roving enquiry. Under section 1(1) the Editor is defined to mean the person who controls the selection of the matter that is to be published in a ne\11spaper. Section 5 ( 1) requires t:p.at ..every copy of every newspaper shall contain the names of the O\\'ner and editor, printed clearly on such copies and also the ~ ' .1 \ \ MOHD. KOYA V. MUTHUKOYA 665 hed. It is depicting Janasangh as a Pig and Shri E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad the Marxist Leader, cutting the flesh of the pig and serving it to the Muslim. This is an attmpt to promote feelings A of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India on B grouods of religion. It is well-known that to eat pork is pardial amthma (haram) for true Muslims. The publication of this cartoon in Chandrika is with the consent and knowledge of the respondent which promoted hatred of the Muslims against the United Front of Marxist Party and J:inata party and Muslim League (Opposition) of which the petitioner is a candidate from the concerned constituency." - C The petitioner has failed to prove that the cartoon was published with the consent and knowledge of the appellant. The term consent is a much stronger word than knowledge because it implies assent. There is nothing to show that the appellant gave his consent to the :Publication of the cartoon at any time. There is no evidence either of consent or knowledge. On the contrary, there is evide11ce to negative this fact [697 F, H, 698 A-CJ The Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not beeD. able D to establish the corrupt practices alleged against the appellant. There is no lcaal or satisfactory evidence to prove that the speech made by the appellant promoted or tended to promote a feeling of enmity and hatred between two claascs of citizens. There is no evidence to prove the knowledge or consent <>f the appellant to the publication of the cartoon. [699 B-C, E-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12 and 865 E of 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 19-12-77 of the Kerala High Cou..-i in Election Petition No. 16 of 1977. F. S. Nariman, S. Narayanan Poli, J. B. Dadachanji and K. J. John for the Appellant, (In CA 12 and Respondent in C.A. 865/ F 78). Y. S. Ch1ta/e and N. Sudhakaran for the Respondent (In C.A. 12 and Appellant in C.A. 865/78). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This election appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Kera!a dated 19th December, 1977 by which the election of the appellant Haji C. H. Mohammad Koya has been set aside and be has been disqualified from tal.:ing part in the elections for a period of six years under the provisions of th~ Representation of tile People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act). For the purpose of brevity we shall refer to the respondentpetitioner as the Petitioner and Haji C. H. Mohammad Koya as · t!Je appellant. G H A B c D 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 1 s.c.R. In the general election held to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala on 20th March, 1977 the petitioner and the appellant were the contesting candidates from No. 34 Malappnram Constituency. The counting of votes took place on the 20th March, 1977 and the appellant was declared elected on the same date. The total votes polled were 56.276. The appellant secured 39,362 votes and thus defeated the petitioner by a margin of 20,000 votes. Aggrieved by the election results, the petitioner filed an election petition in the High Court alleging that the appellant had committed various corrupt practicee falling within the ambit of sections 123(3), (3A) and ( 4) of the Act. It was mainly alleged that before the elections, the appellant was the Chief Editor of a Malayalam daily paper called Chandrika which was the official organ of the Muslim League. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the appellant held shares worth Rs. 3 lakhs in the Printing and Publishing Company which published Chandrika. This paper, according to the petitioner, contains several articles, extracts of speeches and cartoons which tended to ask the Muslims to vote for the appellant on religious and communal grounds and also promoted ill-will and hatred between two classes of citizens, namely, the Janasangh and the Muslim League. It appears, however, that at the hearing the petitioner confined his case only to the corrupt practices alleged by him under section 123(3A) of the Act. In this connection, the learned Judge of the High Court observed as E follows:- F "Though in the petition sub-sections 3, 3A and 4 of section 123 of the Act are specifically referred to, from the evidence tendered in the case it would appear that applicability of sub-section 3A of section 123 alone falls for decision". The petition was contested by the appellant who filed a counteraffidavit denying the assertions and averments made by the petitioner and took the stand that he made no speech which offended section 123 (3A) of the Act nor was he aware of any of the offending articles or cartoons published in Chandrika prior to the elections. He also G denied that he was an Editor of Chandrika, but admitted that he was the Chief Editor and that too only in name. Being an important and an influential person he was able to collect lot of money for , / Chandrika from the Gulf States and that is why he was assigned an ( important role in Chandrika as Chief Editor for the purpose of decidr ing the larger policies of the paper. The appellant further denied H that he had anything to do with the editorial work of Chandrika or the publication of the speeches or articles etc. It may be pertinent to note here that even the petitioner in his petition has not at all r J MOHD. KOYA v. MUTHUKOYA (Fazal Ali, !.) 669 alleged or described the nature of the duties which the appellant performed as Chief Editor nor has he stated that a& Chief Editor he was controlling the materials published in the paper so as to ascribe constructive knowledge to him of the articles published in Chandrika. All that the petitioner pleaded in his petition on this subject may be extracted thus :- "The respondent is the Chief Editor of Chandrika, a daily newspaper published from Calicut. It is published by the Muslim Printing and Publishing Company Limited. The major shares of this company is owned by the Muslim League Party and the respondent holds share worth of Rs. 3 lakhs in the above company. The daily Chandrika is the official organ of the Muslim League Party. It is submitted that in the daily Chandrika of which the respondent is the Chief Editor, is published reports and articles appealing to the members of the Muslim community not to vote for the candidates of the Muslim League (Opposition) in the name of religi.on and community". As regards the speech while the petitioner admitted that he did make a speech as would appear from the extract Ex. P.1 (a) but denied that he ma.de any communal allegations against the Janasangh but stated that some of the words used by him in the speech were used purely in a figurative sense. When the appeal was heard before us counsel for the parties agreed that the only · items of evidence which could be relied upon against the appellant were. (!) his speech Ex. P.1 (a), (2) Cartoon Ex. P.5 ~nd (3) other offend-. ing speeches and articles which were published in the paper of which he was the Chief Editor. It was conceded by Dr. Chitale, counsel for the petitioner that if he was not able to prove that the appellant was really the Editor of the paper then the presumption under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 (hereinafter called the Press Act) would not apply and the case of the petitioner would stand or fall on Ex. P .1 (a) and Exhibit P .5. It is also not disputed that although the High Court has relied on a number of articles and extract of speeches published in the various issues of Chandrika yet none of these have been proved according to law by examining the writer or the reporter or producing the original script of the paper. If, therefore, the petitioner fails to establish that the appellant was virtually the Editor of Chandrika or at any rate performed the duties of the editor then no constructive knowledge of these articles can be attributed to him. The High Court framed the following issues : - 1. Whether the petition is maintainable ? A B c D E F G R A B c 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 1 s.c.R. 2. Whether the election is vitiated by all or any of the corrupt practices alleged in the petition? . 3. Regarding reliefs and costs. As 1egards issue No. 1 the High Court held that the petition was maintainable and decided this issue against the appellant. This finding has not been challenged by the appellant before us and we therefore affirm the same. The main issue in the case was issue No. 2 and we should have expected the High Court to have framed a more detailed issue giving the nature and character of the corrupt practices alleged by the petitioner against the appellant in order to give a clear picture to the parties regarding the matters which were to be decided by the court. However, as both the parties understood what the allegations were and proceeded to trial on that basis the vagueness of the issues framed by the High Court has not caused any prejudice to any of the parties. The main corrupt practice pleaded against the appellant by the D petitioner and which has been vehemently argued before us is to be found in paragraph 5 of the petition which is regarding the inflammatory speech Exhibit P.1 (a) said to have been made by the appellant and which according to the petitioner fell within the mischief of section 123(3A) of the Act. Another important averment made in the petition was in paraE graph 11 of the petition which refers to the cartoon and may be extracted thus :- F .G "In Chandrika dated 12-3-1977 on the front page a cartoon is published. It depicting J ansangh as a Pig and -Shri E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad, the Marxist Leader, cutting to the flesh of the pig and serving it to the Mnslim. This is an attempt to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of idigion. It is well known to eat pork is pardial ansthma (haram) for true muslims. The publication of this cartoon in Chandrika is with the consent and knowledge of the respondent, which promoted hatred of the Muslims against the United Front of Marxist Party and Janata Party and Muslim League (opposition) of which the petitioner is a candidate from the concerned constituency". It is clearly pleaded that the cartoon was published in Chandrika with the consent and knowledge of the appellant. Thus, in other cases, H consent and knowledge were not expressly pleaded by the petitioner, who sought to rely only on the presumptions to be drawn under section 7 of the Press Act. . / \ '- y MOHD. KOYA v. MUTHUKOYA (Fazal Ali, J.) 67 I We shall first take up, therefore, the question whether the petitioner can avail of the presumption to be drawn under section 7 of the Press Act. The High Court has found that in th~ circumstances of the case, section 7 of the press Act fully applies to the facts of the present case. We are however for the reasons that we shall give hereafter unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court. Before dealing with the various provisions of the Press Act, it may be necessary to divide this question into two parts : (1) the legal aspect, and (2) the factual aspect. The legal aspect concerns the effect of the various provisions of the Press Act and the extent B of their applicability to the appellant. The actual aspect would take within its fold the duties and responsibilities performed by the appelC !ant as the Chief Editor. We will first take up the legal aspect. The Preamble to the Press Act runs thus:- "Whereas it is expedient to provide for the regulation of printing-presses and of newspapers, for the presewatlon of copies of every book and newspaper printed in India and for the registration of such books and newspaper, it is ht:reby enacted as follows" : It would thus appear that the object of the Press Act was to regulate printing presses and newspapers in order to preserve copies of newspapers and books. Moreover, in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and uncertainties of liabilities, it was considered necessarv to choose one of the persons from the staff and make him liable· for all the articles or matters published in the paper so that any person aggrieved may sue only the person so named under the provisions of the Press Act and is relieved from the necessity of making a fishing or roving enquiry about persons who may have been individually responsible for the offencjing matters published in the paper. Our opinion in this regard is however re-informed by the statement, object and reasons accompanying the Press Act which may be extracted thus :- "Whereas it is expedient to repeal the Indian Press Act, 1910 and the newspapers (Incitements to Offences) Act, 1908, and to make further provision in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, for the liability of editors of newspapers in civil and criminal proceedings and to make certain amendments in that Act in order to facilitate the registration of printers and publishers; and to provide in the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, for the seizure and disposal nf certain documents; it is lie re by 9-549 s Cil78 D E F G H A 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 1 s.c.R. encted as follows ·" It was with this avowed object that the Press Act clearlv defines 'Editor' who has a clear legal stains under the Press Act. -Section 1 (1) of the Press Act defines 'Editor' thus : "Editor" means the person who controls the selection B of the matter that is published in a newspaper". c D E F G H Section 5 of the Press Act provides that no newspaper shall be published except in conformity with the rules hereinafter laid down. Section 5 ( 1) runs thus :- "Without prejudice to the provisions of section 3, every copy of every such newspaper shall contain the names of the owner and editor thereof printed clearly on such copy and also the date of its publication". It would thus be clear that under section 5 (1) of the Press Act the legal requirement is that every newspaper shall contain the name of the owner and the editor printed clearly, so that there is no confusion in the minds of the people on this account. Sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Press Act makes it incumbent on the printer and the publisher to appear before the authorities mentioned m that section and make a declaration. Sub-rule (2) of rule 8 of the Rules made under the Press Act runs thus : "Every copy of every newspaper shall have printed legibly on it the names of the printer, publisher, owner and euitor and the place of its printing and publication in the following form : Printed by . . . . . . . . and published by . . . . . . . . . . on behalf of . . . . . . . . . . (name of owner) . . . . . . . . . . and printed at . . . . . . . . (place of printing) . . . . . . . . and published at . . . . . . . . (place of publication ....... . Editor .......... " This rule enjoins that the name of the printer, publisher, owner and editor must be clearly indicated. The note to this rule is extracted thus:- "Note : This form may be modified to suit the circumstances of each paper, for example, where the printer, publisher and owner are the same the imprint line can be Printed, published and owned by ... , .. The editor's name, however, should be given separately in every case". This requires that the editor's name, however, should be given separately in every case. Rule 6 requires every publisher to submit an annual statement to the Press Registrar. It is not disputed in the ·~ MOHD. KOYA v. MUTHUKOYA (Fazal Ali, I.) 67 3 present case that this statement was not made by the appellant but by P.W. 2 Aboobaker who was the editor, publisher and printer of Chandrika. The annual statement which has to be filed in form 2 contains one of the columns where the editor's name has to be shown. Section 7 of the Press Act runs thus :- \ "In any legal proceeding whatever, ,1s well civil as criminal, the production of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of some (',ourt empowered by this Act to have the custody of such declarations, or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor shall be held j. . \ (unless the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, or printed on such newspaper as the case may be. that the said person was printer or publisher, or printer and publisher (according as the words of the said declaration may be) of every portion of every newspaper whereof the title shall correspond with the title of the newspaper mentioned in the declaration or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced". • Section 8(A) of the Press Act provides that where any person's name has appeared as an editor in a paper although he was not an editor he shall within two weeks of his becoming aware that his name has been so published, appear before the District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate and make a declaration that his name has been incorrectly published and get a certificate from the Magis- -~ate that the provisions of section 7 shall not apply to him. It may r be interesting to note the following facts here :- l, That the issues of Chandrika shown to us clearly and unmistakably mention the name of Aboobaker as the printer, publisher and editor of Chandrika and does not mention the appellant as the Editor of Chandriku. The A B c D E F appellant is merely shown as the Chief Editor but this is G \ ; an officer which is not at all contemplated hy the Press Act. 2. That if the appellant was really the editor of the paper then P.W. 2 Aboobaker ought to have resorted to section 8 (A) to correct the mistake in the paper where his name was shown as tbe editor but no such thing has been done. One the other hand, P.W. 2 Aboobaker tacitly and clearly admits that he is the editor of the paper. H A 'B c D E F G H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] l s.c.R. 3. That the petitioner has not at all pleaded in his petition the nature of the duties performed or responsibilities shouldered by the appellant as Chief Editor. There is no , averment at all in the petition that the appellant controls the selection of matter that is published in the newspaper which alone would make him an editor as defined in section 1 ( 1) of the Press Act. The word 'Chief Editor' is clearly absent from the Press Act and in fact foreign to it because the Press Act has selected only one person who has a special status and that is the editor who can be sued, if necessary, or can sue and against whom alone a presumption under section 7 of the Press Act can be drawn. While holding that the presumption under section 7 of the Press Act is available to the petitioner, the High Court has completely overlooked the aforesaid aspects mentioned by us. The law on .the subject is absolutely clear and there are a number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the relevant sections of the Press Act. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. R. R. Chowdhary & Ors.(') this Court observed as follows : • "The term 'editor' is defined in the Act to mean a , J ,/ •• person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Where there is mentioned an editor as a person who is responsible for selection of the material section 7 raises presumption in respect of such a person. The name of that person has to be printed on the copy of the newspaper and in the present case the name of Madane admittedly as printed as the editor of the Maharashtra in the copy of the Maharashtra which contained the defamatory article. The declaration in Form I which has been produced before us shows the name of Madane not only as the printer and publisher bnt also as the editor. In our opiuion the presumption will attach to Madane as having selected the material for publication in the newspaper . . . . . . . . . . In the circumstances not only the presumption cannot be drawn against the others who had not declared themselves as editors of the newspaper but it is also fair to leave them cut because they had no concern with the publishing of the article in question". ~ I (I) [1967] 3 S. C. R. 708. MOHD. KOYA v. MUTHUKOYA (Fazal Ali, J.) 67 5 This case, therefore, clearly holds that where a person is not shown in the paper to be its editor no such presumption under section 7 of the Press Act can be drawn but it must be held that he has no con· cern with the pubhshing of the. article. To the same effect is another decision of this Court in the case of D. P. Misra v. Kamal NaY(iin Sharma & Ors.(''). In this case which was also an election matter a newspaper called Mahakoshal was published from Raipur and one Shukla was registered as the printer, publisher and editor with the Press Registrar. The defence of \ Shukla was that he had appointed one Tarangi as the editor of ' Mahakoshal in June 1962 and was not present at the relevant time. • This Court pointed out that the proceedings for naming a person who is found responsible for publication of an offending matter and for eonstituting a corrupt practice are in the nature of quasi-criminal proceedings. It follows therefore that being a corrupt practice it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not by the measure of preponderance of probabilities. The Court observed in this connec· tion as follows : "Section 7 raises a presumption that a person whose name. is printed in a copy of a newspaper is the editor of every portion of that issue. The presumption must be rebutted by evidence .............. The presumption under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act undoubtedly arises, but in a charge .under section 123 ( 4) of the Representation of the People Act the presumption under ;ection 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 would come with greater or less force, accord- 'ing to the circumstances to the aid of a person claiming that the editor was responsible for the publication and that the publication was to the knowledge of editor". "Granting that there was close association between Mishra and Shukla and even granting that Mahakoshal was exclusively carrying on propaganda on behalf of Mishra, unless there is evidence to prove that Shukia had either authorised the publication of the offending matter, or had undertaken to be responsible for all the publications made in the Mahakoshal, no inference that the offending publications were made to the knowledge and with the consent of Shukla may be raised". "TI1e statement filed by Shukla is not inconsistent with the case set up by him in this proceeding. Responsibility for publication was accepted by him but be had clearly stated (I) [1971] 3 S. C. R. 257 A B c D E F G B A B c D E F G B 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] l s.c.R. that the publication of news-items from the correspondents were attended. to by the Sub-editors and that he generally laid down the policy of the newspaper and gave general directions. He admitted his responsibility because he personally had with knowledge published the article which constituted contempt of Court". We may mention here that in this case Shukla in his statement has clearly stated that the publication of the news-items in the paper were attended to by Sub-editors and he generally laid down the policy of the newspaper and gave general directions. No such allegation / or evidence is forthcoming in the instant case because it has neither j been alleged nor proved that the appellant was in any way controlling selection of the matters published in the paper. In the case of Narasinjh Charan Mohanty v. Surendra Mohanty(') this Court pointed' out that consent or agency could not be inferred but had to be proved affirmatively like any other fact. In this connection the Court observed as follows :-- "Consent or agency cannot be inferred from remote causes. Consent cannot be inferred from more close friendship or other relationship or political affiliation. As pointed out in D. P. Mishra's case (snpra) however close the relationship unless there is evidence to prove that the person publishing or writing the editorial was authorised by the returned candidate or he had undertaken to be responsible for all the publications, no consent can be inferred". It was. further held in this case that the · presumption under section 7 of the Press Act is a rebuttable presumption and the so called editor can rebut the presU.11.ption by showing that he had nothing to . do with the publication of the editorial m the news report. In our'\ opinion, even if any presumption is sufficiently "'butted by him not , only from the evidence adduced by the appellant but also by the evidence adduced by the petitioner. We shall presently deal with this facet of the matter, namely the factual aspect of this question. The court further observed as follows :- "When once it is established that neither the editorial (ext. 1) nor the news report (Ext. 2) were published by the respondent or by some one else with his consent or that the speech alleged to be made by Biju Patnaik even if it amounts to corrupt practice, was made without the consent of the respondent, and that Biju Patnaik was not his agent. It is unnecessary to consider the question whether the --- (1) [1974] 2 S. C. R. 39. ' \ y ~~.--- MOHD. KOYA v. MUTHUKOYA (Fazal Ali, J.) 677 editorial and the news report as well as the speech of Biju Patnaik did in fact cO'llstitute corrupt practice under subsection (3) of section 123 of the Act". As against this Dr. Chitale, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted two points before us. In the first place, he argued that the provisions of rule 8 thereof have not at all been complied with, and, therefore, the appellant cannot escape his liability even though he was the Chief Editor. It was argued that the note to rule 8 as also the form mentioned in rule 8 sub-rule (2) dearly provide that the editor's name must be separately shown in every paper and in the instant case the issue of the paper Chandrika shows in a composite form that the editor, printer and publisher of the paper was P.W. 2 Aboobaker. It was thus contended that the provisions of rule 8(2) have not been complied with because the name of the editor has not been separately shown. In these circumstances, it was argued that as the name of the Chief Editor was separately shown he must be taken to be the editor of the paper under the provisions of the Press Act and the rules made thereunder. We are however unable to accept this argument. In the first place, the paper clearly shows the name ot the editor as Aboobaker. As the printer, publisher and the editor was one and the same person it cannot be said that merely because the name of the editor was not shown at a separate place he was absolved of his responsibilities as the editor. The intention of the rule is merely to clarify who the editor of the paper is and once this is shown then there is a substantial though not a literal compliance of the rule. Secondly, the Press Act does not recognise any other legal entity except the editor insofar as the responsibilities of that office are concerned. Therefore, mere mention of the name of the Chief Editor is neither here nor there, nor does it in any way attract the provisions of the Press Act particularly section 7. Thirdly, it is not even pleaded in the petition, much less proved, that the appellant being the Chief Editor, it was part of his duty to edit the paper and control the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper which rn fact has been demonstrably disproved by A B c D E F the appellant. Thus, we are unable to accept the finding of the High . G Court that any presumption under section 7 of the Press Act can be drawn against the appellant. This brings us to the factual aspect of the matter. In this connectfon, the definite case of the appellant is that although he has been shown as the Chief Editor of Chandrika he was not at all connected H with any editorial function but his name was lent tll the paper because of his past services to Chandrika and because he used to get lot of A B c D E F G H -~ 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 1 s.c.R. money for this paper being an influential man. This has been proved not only by the evidence led by the appellant but also by the evidence adduced by the petitioner. Before taking the evidence on this point we might mention a few adrnittec\ facts which loom large in our minds (I) that !lie petitioner proceeds on the footing in his petition that the appellant was the Chief Editor and no where he has been mentioned as th-e editor of Chandrika, (2) there is no pleading by the petitioner that the appellant was an editor within the meaning of section 1 (I) of the Press Act particularly when the paper Chandrika was the pivot and the sheet anchor of his case and which clearly showed that the appel• !ant was not the editor but P.W. 2 Aboobaki!r was officially and factually the editor of the paper and yet there is no positive denial of this fact in the petition; (3) no particulars of the functions, duties and powers of the appellant as Chief Editor have been pleaded. On the other liand, it has been pleaded that the appellant held shares worth Rs. 3 lakhs in the company but that will not attract the provisions of the Press Act at all; and ( 4) as Aboobaker was admittedly the editor of the paper Chandrika as clearly admitted by the petitioner himself in his evidence, the onus was clearly on the petitioners to allege and prove that the duties of the editor were actually performed not by P.W. 2 Aboobaker but by the appellant. In this background wc would now discuss the evidence of the parties on this point. P.W. I Thangal (Petitioner) categorically stales thus:- "V. C. Aboobaker is the editor and printer of Chandrika". He further admits that Aboobaker's responsibility is to submit the reports and the speeches supplied by the appellant. He also admitted that Ab0obaker does the editing. The witness no doubt says that he had seen the appellant in the Chandrika office twice but that by itself would not show that the appellant was the editor of the paper. Strong reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner on the statement of P.W. 1 to the effect that the appellant was doing the day-to-day editorial work of Chandrika.