Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Gammat Nandlal Bhandari, the editor/publisher of a newspaper, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, rejecting his discharge application under Section 227 CrPC. The background is that a victim of sexual offences (under POCSO Act) had lodged an FIR in 2018. Subsequently, two newspapers published articles disclosing the victim's name and address. The victim filed a complaint against the applicant (editor of one newspaper) and another person under Sections 228-A, 500, 501 IPC and Section 23 POCSO Act. The applicant filed a discharge application, which was rejected by the trial court on the ground that under Section 23(3) POCSO Act, the publisher is jointly and severally liable for acts of employees. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the vicarious liability under Section 23(3) applies only when the employee acts within the course of employment. In this case, the reporter had independently published the article without the applicant's knowledge or involvement. The court found no prima facie evidence against the applicant and allowed the revision, discharging him from all offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Discharge under Section 227 CrPC - Vicarious Liability under Section 23(3) POCSO Act - The court examined whether the editor/publisher of a newspaper can be held vicariously liable for the act of a reporter who published the victim's name and address. Held that Section 23(3) imposes joint and several liability on the publisher only if the employee acts within the course of employment; if the employee acts independently without the employer's knowledge or involvement, the employer cannot be held liable at the stage of framing charge. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Prima Facie Case - Discharge - The court considered the material on record and found no prima facie evidence that the applicant (editor) was involved in or had knowledge of the publication of the victim's identity. The reporter had independently published the article. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to discharge under Section 227 CrPC. (Paras 8-10) C) Criminal Law - Section 228-A IPC - Disclosure of Identity of Victim - The offence under Section 228-A IPC requires that the person discloses the identity of a victim of certain offences. In this case, the applicant was not shown to have made any disclosure; the disclosure was made by the reporter. Hence, no prima facie case against the applicant. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, as editor/publisher of a newspaper, can be discharged from offences under Sections 228-A, 500, 501 IPC and Section 23 POCSO Act when the news article disclosing victim's identity was published by a reporter without the applicant's knowledge or involvement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the applicant from all offences.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability under Section 23(3) POCSO Act
- 2012
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Editor's liability for employee's act
- Prima facie case for framing charge
