Managing Director Of Newspaper Has No Direct Role In Selecting News, Chief Editor/Editor Is Responsible: Kerala High Court In Defamation Case

Justice A. Badharudeen observed:

“…it could be held that, it is the Chief Editor or the Editor, who, in the ordinary course, is responsible for selecting the news item and the Managing Director has no direct role in selecting the news items. Therefore, criminal prosecution, alleging defamation against the Managing Director, would not succeed, prima facie.”

The allegation is that the newspaper published a news item saying that the complainant misappropriated funds of Rs. 3 Crore from the Residence Co-operative Society, Kunnathur. It is alleged that the newspaper also published that the complainant built her house using that money.

The petitioners were alleged of committing offences under sections 499, 500 (defamation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.

The petitioner argued that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 120B in the light of Section 196(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). Section 196(2) of Cr.P.C. says that no court shall take cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B without the consent of the State Government or District Magistrate.

This requirement is exempted when the conspiracy was to commit an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for 2 years or more. The petitioner argued that since the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence of 120B without such consent, the whole proceedings could be set aside.

The Court had appointed Adv. Firoz K. M. as amicus curiae to help the Court in the matter regarding the bar under Section 196(2) of Cr.P.C.

The Court held that it is settled law that the bar under Section 196(2) Cr.P.C. applies only to offences against the State and that the heading of Section 196 – 'Prosecution for offences against the State and Criminal Conspiracy to commit such offence' – illustrates that.

Further, the Court found that Section 196(2) of Cr.P.C. has no application in the present case as the Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 34 of IPC and not under Section 120B.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates Jomy George, R. Padmaraj, M. J. Benny, Chitra N. Das, Rishab S., Rona Ann Siby

Counsel for the Respondents Adv. M. R. Sarin, Public Prosecutor Adv. M. P. Prasanth

Case No: Crl.M.C. 5159 of 2023

Case Title: Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil and Another v Visalakshi and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 594