K.M. MATHEW ETC. versus K.A. ABRAHAM AND ORS. ETC.

K.M. MATHEW ETC. versus K.A. ABRAHAM AND ORS. ETC.

Managing Editor, Chief Editor, or Resident Editor can be prosecuted for defamatory publication if it is alleged and can be proved that they had knowledge and control over published material. Section 7 presumption is not exclusive for the Editor; criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the ground that only the Editor can be prosecuted.

Parties
Appellant: K.M. Mathew; Respondent: K.A. Abraham
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Petition for Quashing by High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamation, Press Liability, Quashing 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.M. Mathew

Appellant

K.A. Abraham

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Petition for Quashing by High Court

  1. 1 Whether only the 'Editor' whose name is printed in the publication can be prosecuted for defamation under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867
  2. 2 Whether Managing Editor, Chief Editor, or Resident Editor can be prosecuted for libellous publication despite not being named as 'Editor'

Ratio Decidendi

Managing Editor, Chief Editor, or Resident Editor can be prosecuted for defamatory publication if it is alleged and can be proved that they had knowledge and control over published material. Section 7 presumption is not exclusive for the Editor; criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the ground that only the Editor can be prosecuted.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings initiated against the appellants are to be continued in accordance with law.