MD Not Liable For Content In Newspaper Unless Specific Role Alleged: J&K&L High Court Quashes Complaint Against TOI's Vineet Jain

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a criminal complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom against Vineet Jain, Managing Director of M/s Binnet Coleman and Co. Ltd., which owns the newspaper "Times of India", holding that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the content published in the newspaper in the absence of specific allegations against him.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while observing that "the Act of 1867 does not recognize any legal entity namely Managing Director etc. for raising a presumption. However, such individuals can be proceeded against only if there are specific allegations made against them. The Act of 1867 only recognizes Editor for the purpose of holding him responsible in any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of publication of the newspaper," examined the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham and Ors (2002) 6 SCC 670.The Bench accordingly held that "without there being a statutory presumption against the petitioner who happens to be the Managing Director of the Company which owns the newspaper in question, he could not have been proceeded against. In the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner the prosecution against him cannot be sustained."The Court was hearing a petition filed by Vineet Jain challenging a complaint filed against him under Section 500 RPC, which was pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge), Srinagar, along with the order whereby process was issued against him.The crux of the allegations made in the impugned complaint was that on 07.04.2019, a news item came to be published in several newspapers including the newspaper "Sunday Times", of which the petitioner happens to be the Managing Director, wherein it was reported that on 06.04.2019 an Army man had been shot dead in Sopore, Kashmir. However, while reporting the said news item, the newspapers published the photograph of the respondent-complainant.According to the complainant, because he had been shown to be the deceased army man, it caused irreparable loss and threat to his life. It was submitted that the news item was carried negligently by the accused persons, which was prejudicial to the interest of the complainant. It was averred that by projecting the complainant as an Army man, even though he is an Engineer and a social activist, his reputation had been harmed. It was further alleged that the publication endangered the life of the complainant to the extent that he had serious life threats from different groups who mistook him as an Army man or working for the Army, and that he had been socially boycotted at his work place.The petitioner challenged the complaint and the order whereby summons were issued against him on the grounds that he is functioning as the Managing Director and is not at all concerned or involved in the day-to-day conduct of business of the Company, much less in any of its publications. It was also contended that the petitioner has no role whatsoever in the matters concerning the publications, and that such publications are entrusted to acclaimed journalists of repute who only select the contents of their publications.The petitioner had earlier challenged the impugned order by way of a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, who dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the impugned order being interlocutory in nature is not revisable.Court's Observations:In order to adjudicate the matter Justice Dhar examined the scheme of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, particularly Sections 1, 5 and 7, and observed that the Act defines an "Editor" as the person who controls the selection of material published in a newspaper. While every newspaper is required to disclose the names of its owner and editor, Section 7 creates a statutory presumption only against the person whose name is printed as the Editor, making him prima facie responsible for the contents of the publication, the court stated.Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, the Court held that although there is no statutory immunity in favour of a Managing Director or other office-bearers of a newspaper establishment, they can be prosecuted only where the complaint contains specific allegations showing that they exercised control over or were responsible for the publication of the offending material. Mere designation, the Court held, is insufficient to attract criminal liability. Summarising the legal position, Justice Dhar observed,"....The Act of 1867 does not recognize any legal entity namely Managing Director etc. for raising a presumption. However, such individuals can be proceeded against only if there are specific allegations made against them. The Act of 1867 only recognizes Editor for the purpose of holding him responsible in any civil or criminal proceedings in respect ...

MD Not Liable For Content In Newspaper Unless Specific Role Alleged: J&K&L High Court Quashes Complaint Against TOI's Vineet Jain

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

MD Not Liable For Content In Newspaper Unless Specific Role Alleged: J&K&L High Court Quashes Complaint Against TOI's Vineet Jain

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers