K M MATHEW Vs. K A ABRAHAM
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
August 23,2002
K.M.MATHEW,VIVEK GOENKA,HARI NARAIN NIGAM
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR,K.A.ABRAHAM,PADAM SAMBHAV JAIN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. R B CHOWDHARI [REFERRED]HAJI C H MOHAMMAD KOYA T K S M A MUTHUKOYA VS. T K S M A MUTHUKOYA:HAJI C H MOHAMMAD KOYA [REFERRED]
K M MATHEW VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
SANTOSH DE VS. ARCHNA GUHA [REFERRED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAJENDRA AGRAWALLA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
R VENKATAPATHY VS. SUN TV NETWORK LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-301] [REFERRED TO]AROON PURIE VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2007-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK GOENKA VS. COL. RAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2006-2-530] [REFERRED TO]
MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED VS. SANTIAGO MARTIN [LAWS(SIK)-2022-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KAMAL KUMAR GOENKA AND ANR. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-2-226] [REFERRED TO]
MUNISH SONI VS. RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-584] [REFERRED TO]
Y.S. BHARATHI REDDY VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
S MOHANA RAO VS. HANUMANTHU RAJAGOPALA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2006-3-122] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK CHATURVEDI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-255] [REFERRED TO]
MAMMEN MATHEW VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-5-68] [REFERRED]
INDIAN EXPRESS LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
AROON PURIE VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
GURVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
E P JAYARAJAN VS. SURENDRAN [LAWS(KER)-2009-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
RAMZANI VS. NIZAMUDDIN [LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
C R IRANI EDITOR IN CHIEF VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUINDY MADRAS 36 [LAWS(MAD)-2002-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
RAJDEEP SARDESAI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL VS. GUDUSAB [LAWS(KAR)-2019-6-482] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVRAO DIGAMBER RASANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-10-146] [REFERRED TO]
SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY VS. SRI PYARIMOHAN MOHAPATRA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER KAMAL SEKHRI VS. ASHOK SETH [LAWS(P&H)-2018-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAMVILAS AGRAWAL VS. YOGESH KUMAR [LAWS(CHH)-2020-2-162] [REFERRED TO]
AROON PURIE VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2021-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VS. SHRI GUDUSAB [LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-323] [REFERRED TO]
SRI JAYANTA BARUAH VS. MISS ANJITA SAIKIA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH AGRAWAL VS. B.S.JAGGI [LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-234] [REFERRED TO]
B.V. SEETARAM AND OTHER VS. KRISHNA J. PALEMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2016-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
MAMMOOTTI CHAIRMAN VS. RAJAJI MATHEW THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2006-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
MR. ASHISH BAGGA S/O MR. B.B. BAGGA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-6-43] [REFERRED TO]
V RADHAKRISHNA AND 6 OTHERS VS. ALLA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2018-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
ROHINI SINGH D/O LATE MR. M.B. SINGH & 6 VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-435] [REFERRED TO]
PRADYUT KR. BHUYAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2015-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR AGARWALA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
ACHARYA MAHANT SALKAR BABA VS. DATTATRAYA S/O BABUJI PECHE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-331] [REFERRED TO]
GAMBHIRSINH R. DEKARE VS. FALGUNBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
TATHAGATA SATPATHY VS. PRIYABRATA PATNAIK [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
FALGUNBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL VS. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-273] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VS. FAIROZA UL HASSAN [LAWS(KAR)-2014-1-431] [REFERRED TO]
K GOPALAKRISHNAN VS. A C THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2007-1-338] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK GOENKA MANAGING EDITOR LOKSATTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-1-65] [REFERRED TO]
N RAM, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND PUBLISHER OF THE HINDU AND OTHERS VS. RASHTRIYA SWAYAMSEWAK SANGH, HARYANA PRANT [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-604] [REFERRED]
MOHAMMED ABDULLA KHAN VS. PRAKASH K. [LAWS(SC)-2017-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VISAKHA INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD VS. DATAR SWITCHGEAR LTD [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-82] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIJIT PAWAR VS. HEMANT MADHUKAR NIMBALKAR & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
K. G. Balakrishnan, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Common questions of law arise in these appeals; hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Appellants are either Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor of their respective newspaper publications. Separate criminal complaints were filed against the appellants alleging that in their newspaper publications, libellous matter was published and that these appellants had knowledge and they were responsible for such publication and thus they committed the offence of defamation besides other allied offences. In all these cases, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to these appellants. The appellants challenged their prosecution and contended that in view of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), they are not liable to be prosecuted and that the Editor of the newspaper whose name is printed on it as the "Editor" of that Publication alone is liable to be prosecuted for any of the offence for such libellous publication.
(3.)The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1998 is the Chief Editor of "Malayalam Manorma", a daily having wide circulation in Kerala and other places. According to the appellant in this case, he is the Chief Editor of the "Malayalam Manorma" and that there is also an Editor for this publication who alone can be charged for the offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code in view of the statutory presumption under Section 7 of the Act.
(2.)Common questions of law arise in these appeals; hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Appellants are either Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor of their respective newspaper publications. Separate criminal complaints were filed against the appellants alleging that in their newspaper publications, libellous matter was published and that these appellants had knowledge and they were responsible for such publication and thus they committed the offence of defamation besides other allied offences. In all these cases, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to these appellants. The appellants challenged their prosecution and contended that in view of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), they are not liable to be prosecuted and that the Editor of the newspaper whose name is printed on it as the "Editor" of that Publication alone is liable to be prosecuted for any of the offence for such libellous publication.
(3.)The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1998 is the Chief Editor of "Malayalam Manorma", a daily having wide circulation in Kerala and other places. According to the appellant in this case, he is the Chief Editor of the "Malayalam Manorma" and that there is also an Editor for this publication who alone can be charged for the offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code in view of the statutory presumption under Section 7 of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.