- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr PC to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2705 of 1995, Km. Laxmi Verma v. Jaibrat Roy, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ravindra Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Samit Gopal, learned Counsel for op posite party No. 2 and AGA and have gone through the record. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Chief Editor of Rashtriya Sahara Daily Newspaper. In the issue of 29-3-1995 a news was published that Km. Luxmi Verma, who is running a school, also belongs to a Gang of Gangesters. Thereafter the complaint was filed by Km. Laxmi Verma under Section 500, IPC against the petitioner and many other per sons alleging that the news was false and has caused her defamation, the learned Magistrate after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202, Cr PC sum moned all the accused to stand trial for the. offence under Section 500, IPC by an order dated 16-5- 1995. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been filed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the news published from Ballia. The petitioner is the Chief Editor normally living at Delhi and not living in Ballia. It is also contended that the news was published on the basis of the report given by the local correspon dents, which they gathered from the Su perintendent of Police Sri Ajai Mohan Sharma. It is further alleged that there is another Laxmi Verma. A recovery was made from her, but by mistake the news was published regarding the complainant, who is running a school. The petition has been opposed by the complainant on the ground that the petitioner is the Chief Editor of the Newspaper and is respon sible for the defamation of the com plainant. It is further contended that it was his duty to verify the correctness of the news, which was defamatory.
(3.) IT is admitted that the petitioner was not known to the complainant from before. He is the Chief Editor and it is alleged that normally he lives at Delhi. The news was sent by the local correspondents. Therefore, it is not possible for him to verify the correctness of the news and rely ing on the local correspondents, he pub lished the news. IT is contended that it is true that the recovery was made from Laxmi Verma and she was involved in a gang, but by mistake the name of the petitioner was printed, the learned Coun sel for the petitioner has referred to the case of K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another, AIR 1992 SC, p. 2206; 1992 JIC 212 (SC ). IT was held by the Apex Court that presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is not applicable against the Chief Editor. In this case it was argued that the Chief Editor was responsible for selection of news item and publication thereof. There was not even an averment in the complaint that the Chief Editor has perused the material or edited before its publication or that the news item was published in the newspaper with his knowledge or consent. Considering the circumstances of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for publication of defamatory news against the complainant. The trial is going on at Ballia and it will cause unnecessary harass ment of the petitioner, if the proceedings are continued against him.;