1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2022

1.Vijay s/o Jawaharlal Darda, aged about

66 years, occ. Chairman Lokmat Media

Private Limited, [Lokmat Newspaper

(P) Ltd.],

2.Rajendra s/o Jawaharlal Darda, aged

about 65 years, Occ. Editor-in-chief

Lotmat Media Private Limited, [Lokmat

Newspaper (P) Ltd.],

The applicants are having their office

at Lokmat Bhavan, Jawaharlal Nehru

Marg, Nagpur – 440 012

... APPLICANTS

VERSUS

Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta, aged

about 53 years, Occupation –

Service, r/o Police Station

Maregaon, Tq. - Maregaon,

Distt. Yavatmal.

… NON-APPLICANT

____________________________________________________________

Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the applicants.

Shri Nitin Lambat, Advocate for the non-applicant.

____________________________________________________________

::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

2

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATED. : 20.06.2022.

JUDGMENT :

Heard. ADMIT. By consent, the matter is taken up for

final disposal.

2. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this application takes an

exception to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Yavatmal directing to issue process under Section 500 of the Indian

Penal Code in R.C.C. No. 614 of 2017. Applicant no.1 Vijay Darda is

the Chairman of Lokmat Media Private Limited (Lokmat Newspaper

(P) Ltd.) whilst applicant no. 2 Rajendra Darda is an Editor-in-chief

of Lokmat Media. Lokmat group is publishing a daily newspaper

having wide circulation in the State of Maharashtra. The non-

applicant (complainant) was aggrieved by a news item published in

the daily edition of ‘Lokmat’ dated 20.05.2016. It is the

complainant’s case that the applicants have published a false and

frivolous news item in connivance with the co-accused with the sole

intention of humiliating him, which has lowered his image in society. ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

3

3. Accordingly, the non-applicant lodged a private complaint

in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal against the

applicants and others alleging that they have committed an offence

punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned

Magistrate by taking cognizance of the complaint has recorded

verification of the complainant. On examination of available

material, the learned Magistrate has issued a process against the

applicant and others. Aggrieved by the order of issuance of process,

the applicants have directly approached this Court in terms of

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by relying on the

decision of the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Chawla vs. State of

Rajasthan and anr. (2016) 16 SCC 30 .

4. The facts leading to the controversy can be set out in a

narrow compass, that the applicant no.1 is a Chairmen of the

Editorial Board whilst applicant no. 2 is an Editor-in-chief of Lokmat

Group. Undisputedly, in the daily edition of “Lokmat” dated

20.05.2016, a news item was published concerning the complainant

and his family. For the sake of convenience, the said news item is

reproduced in vernacular as below : ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

4

“laiRrhP;k oknkrwu nksu xVkar gk.kkekjh”

;orekG & ;sFkhy ekjokMh pkSdkr laiRrhP;k oknkrwu

lkseokjh nksu xVkr okn gksmu gk.kkekjh >kY;kph ?kVuk

?kMyh- ;k izdj.kh nksUgh xVkarQsZ eaxGokjh ijLijkafo:/n

‘kgj iksyhl Bk.;kr rdzkjh ns.;kr vkY;k vkgsr-

,dk efgysus fnysY;k rdzkjhuqlkj vkjksih

v’kksd xqIrk] lqehr xqIrk] vkdk’k xqIrk] v:.k xqIrk o

veksy xqIrk jk- loZ ekjokMh pkSd ;kauh tkxsP;k

oknko:u frP;k irhy yks[kaMh ikbZius ekjgk.k dsyh-

rlsp frP;k xG;krhy 60 gtkj :i;s fdaerhps eaxGlw=

tcjhus rksMwu usys- rj ;kp izdj.kkr v’kksd xqIrk ;kauh

fnysY;k rdzkjhuqlkj vkjksih vjfoan xqIrk] f=yksd xqIrk]

fuf[ky xqIrk] johanz xqIrk o brj nksu efgykauh feGwu

laIirhP;k oknkrwu QkoMs o yks[kaMh jkWMus ekjgk.k d:u

xaHkhj nq[kkir dsyh rlsp vf’yy f’kfoxkG d:u thos

ekj.;kph /kedh fnyh- ‘kgj iksfylkauh nksUgh xVkafo:/n

xqUgk nk[ky dsyk vkgs-”

5. Precisely, it was a publication regarding the registration

of crime against the complainant and his family members. Feeling

aggrieved by such publication, the non-applicant (complainant) has

filed a complaint of defamation. It is the case of the complainant that

though the applicants were shouldering the responsibility of the

items published in the newspaper, they have published the

concerned news without verifying its truthfulness. The complainant

alleged that the police report lodged by the co-accused Ashok Gupta

was totally false and frivolous. On the date of the alleged occurrence, ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

5

the complainant was not present at the scene of the crime. Later on,

he was excluded from the charge sheet. It is alleged that the

applicants, without ascertaining the genuineness of the police report,

published the news item which has harmed his reputation and

therefore, the offence.

6. Primarily, on the reading of the aforesaid vernacular news

item of the impugned news, it is evident that the Journalist/News

Reporter has only reported the filing of the police report and the

registration of the First Information Report by the Police officials. It

is not in dispute that the news report was in consonance with the

police report.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicants made two-fold

submissions. Firstly, the applicant nos.1 and 2 are not the Editors of

the newspaper as per the declaration made under Section 7 of The

Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’). In support of said contention, my attention

has been invited to the imprint line of the newspaper. The said

imprint has a specific reference that one Dilip Tikhile is an Editor ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

6

and responsible person in terms of the Act. It is specifically argued

that the imprint note not only specifies the name of the Editor, but

also clarifies that the said person is responsible as per the Act. On

that basis, it is argued that no liability could be fastened against the

applicants in contradiction to the declaration made under the Act.

8. The scheme and scope of the Press and Registration of

Books Act, 1867 are relevant for adjudication of the issue involved.

Section 1 of the Act is the interpretation clause and the expression

“Editor” has been defined as follows:

“1. Interpretation clause.—(1) In this Act,

unless there shall be something repugnant in the

subject or context —

….

‘editor’ means the person who controls the

selection of the matter that is published in a

newspaper;”

9. Section 7 of the Act makes the declaration to be prima

facie evidence for fastening the liability in any civil or criminal

proceeding on the Editor. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows: ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

7

“7. Office copy of declaration to be prima

facie evidence.— In any legal proceeding whatever,

civil as well 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 shall be held (unless the contrary be

proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person

whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration,

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.”

10. Therefore, from the scheme of the Act, it is manifest that

it is the Editor who controls the selection of the matter that is

published in a newspaper. Additionally, every copy of the newspaper

is required to contain the names of the owner and the Editor and

once the name of the Editor is shown, he shall be held responsible in

any civil and criminal proceeding. The interpretation clause

contained in Section 1, clarifies that there is presumption that the

Editor is the person who controls the selection of the matter that was

published in the newspaper. This presumption under Section 7 of the

Act is a rebuttable presumption and it would be deemed sufficient

evidence unless the contrary is proved. ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

8

11. By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court

in case of K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala and anr. (1992) 1 SCC

217 it is contended that the presumption under Section 7 of the Act

is only against a person whose name is printed as an “Editor” and

not against every person who is connected with the newspaper. In

the said case the Supreme Court has specifically considered the said

question in the matter of newspapers. After referring to the

provisions contained in the Act, it was observed in paragraphs Nos.9

and 10 in the manner is as follows:

“9. In the instant case there is no averment against the

Chief Editor except the motive attributed to him. Even the

motive alleged is general and vague. The complainant

seems to rely upon the presumption under Section 7 of the

Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (the Act). But

Section 7 of the Act has no applicability for a person who is

simply named as Chief Editor. The presumption under

Section 7 is only against the person whose name is printed

as editor as required under Section 5(1). There is a

mandatory (though rebuttable) presumption that the

person whose name is printed as Editor is the editor of

every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a

copy is produced. Section 1(1) of the Act defines Editor to

mean the person who controls the selection of the matter

that is published in a newspaper. Section 7 raises the

presumption in respect of a person who is named as the

editor and printed as such on every copy of the newspaper.

The Act does not recognise any other legal entity for

raising the presumption. Even if the name of the Chief ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

9

Editor is printed in the newspaper. There is no

presumption against him under Section 7 of the Act. See

State of Maharashtra v. Dr. RB. Chowdhary & Ors., (1967)

3 SCR 708; U.P. Mishra v. Kamal Narain Sharma & Ors.,

(1971) 3 SCR 257, Narasingh Charan Mohanty v. Surendra

Mohanty, (1974) 2 SCR 39 and Haji C.H. Mohammed Koya

v. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya, (1979) 1 SCR 664.

10. It is important to state that for a Magistrate to take

cognizance of the offence as against the Chief Editor, there

must be positive averments in the complaint of knowledge

of the objectionable character of the matter. The complaint

in the instant case does not contain any such allegation. In

the absence of such allegation, the Magistrate was justified

in directing that the complaint so far as it relates to the

Chief Editor could not be proceeded with. To ask the Chief

Editor to undergo the trial of the case merely on the

ground of the issue of process would be oppressive. No

person should be tried without a prima facie case. The

view taken by the High Court is untenable. The appeal is

accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set

aside.”

12. In the present case, it is blatantly obvious that there is no

allegation against the present applicants that they were having

knowledge of the publication of such imputation or that they were

directly responsible for the publication of such imputation. The

Chairman is supposed to have the overall control over the

management of the establishment. He is not directly concerned with

the publication of the news items and unless there are materials to ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

10

come to such a conclusion, he cannot be roped in for having

committed the offence under section 499 of the IPC. The principle of

vicarious liability is not applicable to Criminal offences and in the

absence of any provision laid down in the statute, the Chairman

cannot be held vicariously liable for the offence committed by the

employees. Merely because the accused happened to be the

Chairman of the Lokmat group, no criminal case can lie against him

for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.

13. Contextually reference can be made to the decision of

this Court in Samir Jain s/o Ashok Kumar Jain v. Abhijit Chavan

1996 (2) ALL MR 93, wherein this Court has observed that the law is

well settled that an owner of a newspaper cannot be made accused

of defamation only on the ground of his ownership unless there is

specific material to show that he is in any way directly responsible

for the publication of impugned news items.

14. Pertinent to note that the imprint line though

conspicuously spells out that one Dilip Tikhile is Editor and

responsible under the Act, still he is not made accused. By any ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

11

stretch of imagination, the liability of publication cannot be stretched

to the applicants unless a case of conspicuous malice is made out.

The complaint is totally silent to indicate either the applicants know

the complainant or they had any reason to publish said particular

news. The intention on the part of the accused to harm the

reputation or the knowledge or reasonable belief that an imputation

will harm the reputation of the person concerned is an essential

ingredient of the offence of defamation. There is no material to show

that the applicants were somehow concerned with the publication of

the defamatory news item. Presumption regarding awareness of the

contents of the newspaper can be raised only against the Editor

whose name appears on the copy of the newspaper and not against

the other Editors like Editor-in-chief, Sub-editor, Resident Editor, etc.

15. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the

applicants have deliberately suppressed the name of Editor though

repeatedly asked. In this regard, I have been taken through the

exchange of notices in between the parties. Initially, the complainant

vide notice dated 25.07.2017, has asked the name of a person at

whose instance the said news item was published. The said notice ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

12

was responded to by the Lokmat Group through their advocate vide

reply dated 08.08.2017. In said reply, the complainant’s attention

was invited to the imprint line of newspaper about the responsibility

of the particular named person. Learned Counsel for the

Complainant would submit that since no specific name of Editor was

furnished, the complainant issued a second notice dated 24.08.2017

once again enquiring the name of a responsible person /Editor for

taking appropriate action.

16. It is argued that since the applicants have deliberately

suppressed the name of the Editor, it amounts to mala fides. In a true

sense, the said exercise was unwarranted. Already as a mandate of

the Act, an imprint line was published in the newspaper displaying

the name of the Editor with a specific note that he is responsible for

the news items. In the circumstances, there was no obligation on the

applicants to refurnish the said information and therefore,

submission as regards mala fides is wholly untenable.

17. It takes me to another limb of submission. Learned

Counsel for the applicants would submit that mere publication of ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

13

registration of crime would not fall within the ambit of Section 499

of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that whatever was

registered in the First Information Report against the non-

applicant(complainant), was published in the newspaper, which

cannot be termed as defamation. In order to constitute the offence of

defamation, the dual requirement is to be met, that the publication

must be an imputation, and secondly, there must be an intention to

harm the reputation of the person.

18. It is not in dispute that at the instance of the Police report

lodged by co-accused Ashok Gupta, Police of Yavatmal City Police

Station registered crime no. 313 of 2016 for the offence punishable

under Sections 143, 148, 326, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

against the non-applicant (complainant) and 5 others. As far as the

news item is concerned, there is no allegation that the news was a

distorted version or a colourable exaggeration of the First

Information Report. In short, there is no dispute that the crime was

registered against the complainant and the news item reflects the

true gist of the allegations levelled in the report. Rather the said fact

cannot be disputed since the copy of the First Information Report has ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

14

been produced on record. The core question is whether publication

or reporting of registration of crime amounts to the intentional

imputation of a named person. Undoubtedly, the Press has great

power in impressing the minds of the people and thus it is essential

that the person responsible for publishing anything in newspapers

should take good care before its publication. No doubt, publication

of news on rumour or on hear-say information having no iota of

truth is fatal to a Journalist. Herein it is not the case that First

Information Report was not at all registered or the distorted news

item was published.

19. It was thus inquired from the Counsel for the non-

applicant as to how the action of reporting a news item could be said

to be defamatory. It is common knowledge that in daily newspapers

at least some space is devoted to the news about the registration of

crimes, filing of cases in Courts, the progress of the investigation,

arrest of persons, etc. It constitutes news events which public has the

right to know. Certainly, the Publishers are to report the true

happenings in their newspapers. I may reiterate that there is no

dispute that the fact of registration of crime was correctly reported. ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

15

Filing complaints about defamation on such news items are nothing

but an attempt to shut up and stifle the Reporters /informants and to

force them to withdraw the report filed against the persons who are

allegedly defamed. No reply in this respect was forthcoming from the

Counsel of the non-applicant nor has anything in this respect been

stated as to how the said act of Editor/Publisher gives rise to the

action for libel. If it was held so then no reporting of news could be

made till the final outcome of the investigation or the final orders of

the last Court. It would deprive the rights of the public to know the

happenings.

20. It is the primary function of the Press to provide

comprehensive and correct information, especially when it is brought

into the public domain. Freedom of the Press is implied from the

freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of

the Constitution of India. In other words, the freedom of making a

true report regarding the affairs which are in the public domain is a

right, which flows from the freedom of speech. The action of

defamation about true and faithful reporting is unhealthy for a

democratic setup. ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

16

21. Registration of a crime is no longer a private affair. The

Supreme Court in case of Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of

India and anr. (2016) 9 SCC 473 has directed that the copies of the

First Information Report (barring cases of sensitive nature) shall be

uploaded on the website meaning thereby the registration of the

First Information Report falls in the public domain.

22. The main question that arises is as to whether a case is

made out for attracting the offences punishable under Sections 499

and 500 IPC from the averments contained in the complaint (R.C.C.

No. 614 of 2017). I have carefully gone through the averments in the

complaint. From the contents of the same, it is discernible that, apart

from the averment to the effect that the applicants are Chairman and

Editor-in-chief, the specific role played by them in selecting, editing

and publishing the said news item has not been stated therein. All

the allegations contained therein are general in nature.

Conspicuously, the person who is directly responsible for publishing

the news item has not been made an accused. Therefore, the

question that emerges here is whether merely because of the fact

that the applicants were holding high positions in the Newspaper

Group can be implicated for the offence alleged. Before going into ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

17

further details, the requirements to attract offences under Sections

499 and 500 IPC are to be examined. Section 499 IPC reads as

follows:

“499. defamation.- Whoever, by words either spoken

or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible

representations, makes or publishes any imputation

concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing

or having reason to believe that such imputation will

harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in

the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.- It may amount to defamation to

impute anything to a deceased person, if the

imputation would harm the reputation of that person

if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of

his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.- It may amount to defamation to

make an imputation concerning a company or an

association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.- An imputation in the form of an

alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to

defamation.

Explanation 4.- No imputation is said to harm a

person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or

indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral

or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the

character of that person in respect of his caste or of his

calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it

to be believed that the body of that person is in a

loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as

disgraceful.” ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

18

23. From the perusal of the definition of the term

“Defamation” as contained under Section 499 IPC, it can be seen

that, in order to attract the said offence, there must be a positive act

on the part of the accused by words either spoken or intended to be

read, or by signs or by visible representations, which contain any

imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or

having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the

reputation of such person. It is evident that the offence is person-

centric and only if the particular accused has made any act with the

specific intention or knowledge of its consequences, he can be

prosecuted for the said offence. In such circumstances, it is

absolutely necessary that the complaint should contain specific

averments, pointing out the specific role played by each of the

accused persons in expressing, making or publishing the

objectionable imputations with the intention or knowledge of the

consequences of such imputations.

24. The tenor of the entire private complaint is that the

allegations levelled in the Police report qua complainant Ravindra

are totally false. In the complaint of defamation, he pleaded that on ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

19

the date of the alleged occurrence, he was not present rather he was

elsewhere on duty. It is alleged that the publisher of the newspaper

without verifying the truthfulness of the news, had published the

news item, amounting to defamation. The complaint also bears

reference that complainant has been excluded while filing the charge

sheet, perhaps under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As a matter of fact, the news item was published within three days

from the registration of the crime, therefore, subsequent exclusion

from the charge sheet has no bearing at all. Moreover, the news item

was based on the true facts i.e. about the registration of crime at the

Police Station. The responsibility of the Editor is to publish true facts

and nothing else. The complaint of defamation alleges that the

truthfulness of the contents of the First Information Report are not

verified. The publisher is not expected to investigate the matter and

ascertain the truthfulness of the First Information Report before

publishing the news item. The liability and responsibility of the

Editor are restricted to a limited extent therefore, the contention in

that regard is not acceptable.

25. Moreover, in the light of the legal position set out by the ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

20

Supreme Court in the above-referred case of K.M. Mathew it is not

possible to implicate the applicants in the absence of specific

averments indicating their role in the commission of the offence.

Further, there is also no provision under the Indian Penal Code

providing for vicarious liability upon persons other than persons

declared under the Act.

26. One cannot miss the fact regarding the conduct and

manner in which the news item was published. The whole reading of

the news item discloses that the reporting was not only as regards to

registration of crime against the complainant and his family

members, but in the same news another story i.e. registration of a

counter case against another group has also been published. The said

fact accentuates to infer that the sole intention behind publication

was to make true and fair disclosure about the fact of registration of

crimes.

27. To summarize the position as per the statutory imprint

line, the responsibility of publication would not lie on persons other

than the named responsible person. Moreover, the averments

contained in the complaint do not disclose the applicant’s role in ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::

21

preparing, editing or publishing the news item, which is the subject

matter of the complaint. All the allegations contained therein are of

general nature. Conspicuously, the person who was directly

responsible as per statutory declaration was not made an accused.

The learned Counsel for the non-applicant has not disputed the said

position of law. Inasmuch as, fair reporting of the information, which

is brought in public domain i.e news item containing a statement of

facts may not attract action for defamation. I may reiterate that fair

reporting of a matter, without insinuations and innuendos i.e. a news

item is not actionable. Continuation of such prosecution amounts to

abuse of the process of the Court and would not sustain in the eyes

of law.

28. In view of that, application deserves to be allowed, and

allowed accordingly. The impugned order of issuance of process

dated 16.01.2018 against the applicants in R.C.C. No.614 of 2017 is

hereby quashed and set aside. The Criminal Complaint against

applicant nos. 1 and 2 stand dismissed. The Criminal Application

stands disposed of in the above terms.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Trupti ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:38:03 :::