1867 is not applicable for a person, who is simply named as “Editor” as required under Section 5(1) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. There is no mandatory presumption that a person whose name is printed as Editor is the Editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced. Section 1(1) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 defines “Editor” to mean the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Section 7 raises the presumption in respect of a person who is named as the Editor and printed as such on every copy of the newspaper. The Act does not recognize any other legal entity for raising the presumption. Even if the name of the Chief Editor is printed in the newspaper, there is no presumption against the Editor under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Therefore, there must be positive averments in the complaint of the knowledge by the Editor of the objectionable character of the matter. Further, it is for the respondent to plead that the second petitioner, selected, printing and publishing the alleged defamatory text. Therefore, the second petitioner is not liable to be punished for the offences alleged by the respondent. Mere publication of an imputation by itself may not constitute the offence of defamation unless such imputation has been made with the intention, knowledge or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation
