# STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DR. R. B. CHOWDHARY & 2 ORS

- **Citation:** [1967] 3 S.C.R. 708
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-04-19
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE J!IRISD!CTION : Criminal Appeal No. !'I of 1965
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, C. A. Vajdialjngam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-maharashtra-v-dr-r-b-chowdhary-2-ors-4013
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Press and Registration of Book.< Act (25 of 1967), s. 7-"Editor",
,.,,/Jo is_:_When presiunplion under the sectt'on could he drawn.
The respondents were members of the Editorial Board of a new.·
paper. One M, who had made a declaration
under s. 5 of the Press
and Registration of Books Act, 1867, that he was the editor, printer and
publisher of the newspaper, was shown in the newspaper also as its editor.
A complaint was filed again'! M and the respondents that they published
a defamatory article in the newspaper.
The High Court, in revision, held
that the respondents should be discharged, because, M had admitted in
his statement under s. 342, Cr. P.C., that he wrote the article and be·
cause, there was no cogent evidence against the
·respondents that they
were the editors of the newspaper.
Jn appeal by the State to this Court,
HELD : (i) Though the statement of M under s. 342 Cr. P.C. was
npt evidence j~ favour of the respondents, there was no evidence to !\how
that they had any concern with the publishing of the article. '17 If> B;
711 CJ
(ii) Since M alone was sho"!n to be the editor in the declaration under
'· , 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, and in the new•pupcr
it could be presumed under s. 7 that M was responsible for the selccuon
of the material published, and his admission that ho
wrote the
ar.iclc
could be taken into consideration against hirμ.
But no such pre•umption
c~1uld be drawn ngain.<t the ·respondents nn<l they were rightly <li•chargcd. [711 BJ.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE J!IRISD!CTION :
Criminal Appeal No.
!'I of 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dat~d
April I 5, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revhion
Application No. I 7 of 1964.
H. R. Khanna, S. P. Nayyar for R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
S. C. Agarwal, for the respondent.
The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, .l.
This is an appeal against an order of a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay discharging
the respondents in a criminal case in which they were made
accused with one Sudhakar Gopal Madane.
The matter arises in this way.
The Public Prosecutor, We't
Khandesh, Dhulia with the previous sanction of the State
Government filed a complaint against. four
pe~sons who are
members of the Editorial Board of a Maharath1 Weekly named
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
JI
MAHARASHTRA v. CHOWDHARY (Hidayatu//ah, J.)
709
"'Maharashtra", under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
The
complaint was that in an issue of the Maharashtra dated October
30, 1959, they had published an article which tended to defame
one M. A. Dcshmukh, I.A.S., Cdllector and District Magistrate,
West Khandesh in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his
public functions.
We need not go into the facts of that article
or the gravamen of the charge of defamation. This Weekly Maharashtra is
registered as
a newspaper and a declaration
in Form I under Art. 3 of the Press and Registration of
Books Act, 1867 has been filed by Sudhakar Gopal Madane
who has described himself in the declaration as the editor,
printer and publisher of the newspaper. The particular copy of
the Maharashtra in which the alleged defamatory article appeared bore· the name of Madane as the editor, printer and publisher
of the newspaper.
It also
showed on the front
page the
Editorial Board consisting of the three respondents and Madane
the Editor.
The short question which has arisen in the present
matter is whether the Members of the Editorial Board other than
the Editor can be prosecuted for the defamatory article.
The Additional Sessions Judge Dhulia, who is trying the
case, held by an order dated October 26, 1963, that the respondents 2, 3 and 4 could be charged with the Editor because
they were Members of the Editorial Board. He held that there
was no evidence so far adduced by the prosecution to establish
that they were the Editors, Printers and Publishers of the
Weekly yet in view of the admissions of the respondents that
they were Members of the

## Text

708
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
DR. R. B. CHOWDHARY & 2 ORS.
April 19, 1967
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAJDIALJNGAM, JJ.]
Press and Registration of Book.< Act (25 of 1967), s. 7-"Editor",
,.,,/Jo is_:_When presiunplion under the sectt'on could he drawn.
The respondents were members of the Editorial Board of a new.·
paper. One M, who had made a declaration
under s. 5 of the Press
and Registration of Books Act, 1867, that he was the editor, printer and
publisher of the newspaper, was shown in the newspaper also as its editor.
A complaint was filed again'! M and the respondents that they published
a defamatory article in the newspaper.
The High Court, in revision, held
that the respondents should be discharged, because, M had admitted in
his statement under s. 342, Cr. P.C., that he wrote the article and be·
cause, there was no cogent evidence against the
·respondents that they
were the editors of the newspaper.
Jn appeal by the State to this Court,
HELD : (i) Though the statement of M under s. 342 Cr. P.C. was
npt evidence j~ favour of the respondents, there was no evidence to !\how
that they had any concern with the publishing of the article. '17 If> B;
711 CJ
(ii) Since M alone was sho"!n to be the editor in the declaration under
'· , 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, and in the new•pupcr
it could be presumed under s. 7 that M was responsible for the selccuon
of the material published, and his admission that ho
wrote the
ar.iclc
could be taken into consideration against hirμ.
But no such pre•umption
c~1uld be drawn ngain.<t the ·respondents nn<l they were rightly <li•chargcd. [711 BJ.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE J!IRISD!CTION :
Criminal Appeal No.
!'I of 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dat~d
April I 5, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revhion
Application No. I 7 of 1964.
H. R. Khanna, S. P. Nayyar for R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
S. C. Agarwal, for the respondent.
The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, .l.
This is an appeal against an order of a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay discharging
the respondents in a criminal case in which they were made
accused with one Sudhakar Gopal Madane.
The matter arises in this way.
The Public Prosecutor, We't
Khandesh, Dhulia with the previous sanction of the State
Government filed a complaint against. four
pe~sons who are
members of the Editorial Board of a Maharath1 Weekly named
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
JI
MAHARASHTRA v. CHOWDHARY (Hidayatu//ah, J.)
709
"'Maharashtra", under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
The
complaint was that in an issue of the Maharashtra dated October
30, 1959, they had published an article which tended to defame
one M. A. Dcshmukh, I.A.S., Cdllector and District Magistrate,
West Khandesh in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his
public functions.
We need not go into the facts of that article
or the gravamen of the charge of defamation. This Weekly Maharashtra is
registered as
a newspaper and a declaration
in Form I under Art. 3 of the Press and Registration of
Books Act, 1867 has been filed by Sudhakar Gopal Madane
who has described himself in the declaration as the editor,
printer and publisher of the newspaper. The particular copy of
the Maharashtra in which the alleged defamatory article appeared bore· the name of Madane as the editor, printer and publisher
of the newspaper.
It also
showed on the front
page the
Editorial Board consisting of the three respondents and Madane
the Editor.
The short question which has arisen in the present
matter is whether the Members of the Editorial Board other than
the Editor can be prosecuted for the defamatory article.
The Additional Sessions Judge Dhulia, who is trying the
case, held by an order dated October 26, 1963, that the respondents 2, 3 and 4 could be charged with the Editor because
they were Members of the Editorial Board. He held that there
was no evidence so far adduced by the prosecution to establish
that they were the Editors, Printers and Publishers of the
Weekly yet in view of the admissions of the respondents that
they were Members of the Editorial Board there was a prima
facie case proved against them that they were makers of the
impugned article. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further
said that the prosecution would have to lead satisfactory and
cogent evidence to prove and establish that respondents 2, 3 and
4 were Editors, Printers and Publishers.
The present respondents 2, 3 and 4 thereupon filed an application for revision
before .the Hi~h ~ourt and the impugned order came to be made
on their application.
It· was held by the learned Single Judne
that the statement of the editor Madane made under S. 342 ~f
the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly showed in unequivocal
terms that the alleged defamatory article had been written by him.
The newspaper according to the learned Single Judge also showed
a! the bottom of the last page the name of Madane as the Editor.
Smee there was no other cogent evidence against
the present
respondents, the learned Single Judge held that there was no good
ground for framing a charge against the present respondents and
they ought to be discharged. He made an order in that behalf.
The State of Maharashtra which appeals by special leave
contend.~ that qie learned Single Judge of the High Court wa~
wrong m treating the statement under S. 342 of the Code of
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1967] 3 S.C.R.
Criminal Procedure of Madane as accused No. 1 as evidence
in the case tending to exonerate the present respondents.
The
State also urges in addition that a presumption under S. 7 of the
Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 can be raised against
the Editorial Board and they can therefore be held responsible
fur the defamatory article.
We shall deal with these two
questions.
The first argument is correct. No doubt under the Code of
Criminal Procedure the statement of an accused may be taken
into consideration in an inquiry or trial but it is not strictly evidence in the case.
An accused, when he makes his statement
under S. 342, does not depose as a witness because no oath is
administered to 'him, when he is examined under that section.
The recent amendment of the Code, however,
enables an
accused to give evidence on his own behalf under S. 342-A and
this is only when an accused offers in writing to give evidence on his own behalf that his statement can be read as
evidence proper.
However, the matter is not .to be decided on whether the
statement of Madane could be read as evidence or not but who
was the ·editor of the newspaper.
Section 7 of the Press and
Registration of Books Act allows a presumption to be raised
under certain circumstances.
That section reads as follows:-
"7. In any · legal proceeding whatever, as well
civil as criminal, the production of a copy of such
declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of some
Court empowered by this Act to have the custody of such
declaration (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 (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.)
The term 'editor' is defined in the Act to mean a person who
controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Where there is mentioned an ~itor as a. person who
is responsible for selection of the matenal s. 1 raises the presumption in respect of such a person. The name of that. person
has to be printed on the copy of the newspaper and m the
A
B
c
D
E
F
l
G
H
'
A
iiii
B
c
;
MAHARASHTRo\ v. CHOWDHARY (Hldayatullah, /.)
711
present case the name of Madane admittedly was 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 but also as the editor. In
our opinion the presumption will attach to Madane as having
selected the material for publication in the newspaper.
It may
not be out of place to note that Madane admitted that he had
written this article. 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 out because they had no concern with the publishing of
the artiCle in question. On the whole therefore the order of discharge made by the learned Single Judge appears to be proper
in the circumstances of the case and we see no reason to interfere.
The appeal fails and iq dismissed.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismirsed-