been so shown in the newspaper, unlike the 1st petitioner who was not mentioned as the Editor or Printer or Publisher, to be brought within the scope of Section 7 of the press and registration of books act, 1867. The presumption under Section 7 thereof is, undoubtedly, available against the 2nd petitioner, though rebuttable it may be, and as held in South Gurbachan Singh Koshan v. Babu Ram (3 supra), the duty of the Editor to verify before publication cannot be negative even before an enquiry or trial on merits. The principles laid down in the decisions from foreign jurisdictions, not inconsistent with the Indian law, suggest that there is no absolute immunity to the press in this regard, which is subject to the ordinary laws of the land like any other citizen and by virtue of Section 7 of the press and registration of books Act, 1867, the consequential presumption arising against the 2nd petitioner there under, the admitted status of the 2nd petitioner as the Editor of the newspaper and the contents of the publication in question, through by way of a paid advertisement, being undoubtedly, offensive to the complainant (while whether they are defamatory in character or not has to be still established during trial), any premature termination of the criminal proceedings against the 2nd petitioner may not be in tune with the settled principles it may be that the 2nd petitioner may ultimately prove himself to be entitled to be absolved of any criminal liability due to absence of any mala fides or malice or illwill or knowledge or due to the publication having been made in spite of his due diligence, care and caution or otherwise due to such other sustainable defence, but the trial Court could not have refused to take cognizance of the offence against him at the preliminary stage itself. Hence, the criminal petition cannot succeed in respect of the 2nd petitioner.”
