- (1.) P. C. Borooah, J: The first petitioner Dilip Chakravarty is the Editor and the second petitioner Jayanta Kumar Gon is the printer and publisher of "bangladesh," a Bengali Weekly newspaper, printed on behalf of the bangladesh Publication at 'pressmen' located at No. 9, Nabin Pal Lane Calcutta-9, and published from Mercantile building, 9, Lall Bazar Street, Calcutta.
(2.) IN the issue dated October 26 1975 of the said newspaper an article was published entitled "bardhaman zila Shasaker Kirti," This article appeared in pages 1 and 11 of the said issue and contained various imputations of a defamatory nature concerning Sri ashoke Chaterji I. A. S. , District Magistrate and Collector of the District of burdwan. The imputations were to the effect that Sri Chatterji had taken rs. 27,000/- for the purpose of marriage of his sister-in-law's daughter, from some Rice Mill owners of Burdwan and that lakhs of rupees had changed hands during the last Procurement season and that officer including the District Magistrate himself had profited by such transactions. As the Article contained imputations in respect of acts done by sri Chatterjee in the discharge of his public functions as the District Magistrate of Burdwan, the Public Prosecutor of the City Sessions Court at Calcutta, on the basis of a sanction accorded by the State under section 198b (3) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 filed a petition of complaint before the chief Judge, City Sessions Court at calcutta on January 10, 1974 against the two petitioners. The learned Judge after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and scrutinizing the petition of complaint and a copy of the said newspaper dated 26th October 1973, issued process under section 500 of the Indian penal Code against the two petitioners.
(3.) THE case was ultimately transferred to the Bench of Sri N. G. Chowdhury, Judge. 9th Bench of the City sessions Court for disposal. A petition was filed before the learned Judge for expunging from the record the copy of the said Weekly newspaper which had been marked Exhibit 2. It was contended before the learned judge that the newspaper could not be proved without producing the original manuscript written and signed by the special correspondent and sent to the Editor of the said newspaper. It was further contended that the Editor, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to have made or published the impugned article. The learned Judge by his order dated June 26, 1974 held that exhibit 2 had been brought in evidence in accordance with section 81 of the indian Evidence Act and he further held that as an section 1 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the term 'editor' has been defined to mean a person who controls the selection of matter that is published in a newspaper, the Editor cannot escape responsibility although the impugned article may have been received from a special correspondent. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Judge the petitioners have obtained the present Rule and have come up before us.;