abhishreshthaa
Abhijeet S
Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence.
In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil 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, 2[or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor] shall be held (unless the countrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, 2[or printed on such newspaper, as the case may be] 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 3[newspaper] whereof the title shall correspond with the title of the 3[newspaper] mentioned in the declaration, 2[or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced.
COMMENTS
(i) If there are no allegations against petitioners-executive editor, managing editor and resident editor showing that they have any hand in selection of matter that is published in newspaper then presumption under section 7 of the Act against them is not attracted and order issuing process against petitioners to face trial for defamation is not proper. Prabhu Chawla v.A.U. Sheriff, 1995 Cr.L.J. 1922 (Kant).
(ii) The presumption under section 7 of the Act is only against the person whose name is printed as �Editor� as required under section 5(1);K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 2206.
(iii) Presumption as to awareness of contents of newspapers can be raised only against the editor whose name appears in declaration published in newspaper; S. Nihal Singh v. Arjun Das, 1983 Cr.L.J. 777.
In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil 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, 2[or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor] shall be held (unless the countrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, 2[or printed on such newspaper, as the case may be] 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 3[newspaper] whereof the title shall correspond with the title of the 3[newspaper] mentioned in the declaration, 2[or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced.
COMMENTS
(i) If there are no allegations against petitioners-executive editor, managing editor and resident editor showing that they have any hand in selection of matter that is published in newspaper then presumption under section 7 of the Act against them is not attracted and order issuing process against petitioners to face trial for defamation is not proper. Prabhu Chawla v.A.U. Sheriff, 1995 Cr.L.J. 1922 (Kant).
(ii) The presumption under section 7 of the Act is only against the person whose name is printed as �Editor� as required under section 5(1);K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 2206.
(iii) Presumption as to awareness of contents of newspapers can be raised only against the editor whose name appears in declaration published in newspaper; S. Nihal Singh v. Arjun Das, 1983 Cr.L.J. 777.