D. P. MISHRA versus KAMAL NARAIN SHARMA & ORS.

D. P. MISHRA versus KAMAL NARAIN SHARMA & ORS.

The presumption under s. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, is rebuttable and evidence accepted by the High Court showed Shukla was not responsible for the publication of offending material at the relevant time. No sufficient reason was shown to reappraise the evidence or to infer knowledge or consent by Shukla. Therefore, the High Court's order not naming Shukla under s. 98 is confirmed.

Parties
Appellant: D. P. Mishra; Respondent: Kamal Narain Sharma; Non Party/respondent to Notice: Mr. S. C. Shukla; Respondent: Respondents Nos. 3 and 4
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 December 1970
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated March 12, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 49 of 1967; Concerning Further Proceedings for 'naming' Under S. 98 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in Accordance With Supreme Court Order Dated March 17, 1970.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order confirmed.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices Under Representation of the People Act, Liability of Editor Under Press and Registration of Books Act, Burden and Presumption for Editor's Liability, Appellate Review in Quasi Criminal Proceedings
Election Law Media Law Corrupt Practices Under Representation of the People Act Liability of Editor Under Press and Registration of Books Act Burden and Presumption for Editor's Liability Appellate Review in Quasi Criminal Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. P. Mishra

Appellant

Kamal Narain Sharma

Respondent

Mr. S. C. Shukla

Non Party/respondent to Notice

Respondents Nos. 3 and 4

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated March 12, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 49 of 1967; Concerning Further Proceedings for 'naming' Under S. 98 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in Accordance With Supreme Court Order Dated March 17, 1970.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Shukla was liable to be named under s. 98 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as responsible for corrupt practice in publishing certain statements in the newspaper Mahakoshal;
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under s. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, made Shukla responsible for those publications;
  3. 3 Whether evidence rebutted the presumption of editorial responsibility;

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption under s. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, is rebuttable and evidence accepted by the High Court showed Shukla was not responsible for the publication of offending material at the relevant time. No sufficient reason was shown to reappraise the evidence or to infer knowledge or consent by Shukla. Therefore, the High Court's order not naming Shukla under s. 98 is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order confirmed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs of the proceeding against Shukla.
  • No order as to costs in the appeal since Sharma did not appear in the Supreme Court.