SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(AP) 155

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO
Public Prosecutor, A.P. - Appellant
Versus
T.Amrath Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 09-04-59

The publisher of a book or paper printed within British India has a duty to ensure that the book or paper complies with the requirements of Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, including the printing of the name of the printer, place of printing, name of the publisher, and place of publication.

Headnote:

PRESS AND REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT - SECTION 3 AND 12 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PRINTING AND PUBLISHING BOOKS AND PAPERS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - LIABILITY OF PUBLISHER.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents were charged under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act for publishing printed leaflets without the names of the printer, publisher, and place of printing and publication. The leaflets were printed at the Pearl Press, Secunderabad, and the 1st respondent admitted to ordering the printing and taking delivery of the leaflets.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the leaflets were a "paper" within the meaning of the Act and that the requirements of Section 3, which mandates the printing of the name of the printer, place of printing, name of the publisher, and place of publication, were not satisfied. The court held that the names of the respondents printed at the end of the leaflets, along with the heading "Andhra Pradesh Police Employees Association" and its address, did not comply with the requirements of Section 3.

Issues: 1. Whether the printed leaflets constituted a "paper" within the meaning of the Press and Registration of Books Act. 2. Whether the requirements of Section 3 regarding the printing of the name of the printer, place of printing, name of the publisher, and place of publication were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of "paper" in Section 1 of the Act, as amended by Act 55 of 1955, to include any document, including a newspaper, other than a book. The court held that the leaflets, which contained decipherable information set down in a lasting form, fell within the definition of "paper" and were subject to the requirements of Section 3. 2. The court examined the purpose of Section 3, which is to inform the public of the responsible printer and publisher of a paper. The court held that the names of the respondents printed at the end of the leaflets, along with the heading "Andhra Pradesh Police Employees Association" and its address, did not clearly communicate to the public who was responsible as the printer and publisher. The court found that the requirements of Section 3 were not satisfied.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed as regards the 1st respondent and dismissed as regards respondents 2 and 3. The 1st respondent was found guilty and convicted under Section 12 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 or undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks in default.

RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the three respondents upon a charge under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act XXV of 1867 (hereinafter called the Act ). The prosecution case is that the respondents published at Hyderabad printed Telugu leaflets, one of which has been marked as Ex. P-l, without the names of the printer and of the publisher and the place of printing and of publication being printed on them. The leaflets were printed at the Pearl Press, Secunderabad. The evidence of P. W. 1, the proprietor of the press is that on or about 27-12-1957, the 1st respondent gave him the order to print them and that on 31-12-1957, the 1st respondent took delivery of 500 out of 1000 copies that were printed. The matter printed in the leaflets may be shortly described as an appeal to police men to support the Andhra Pradesh. Police Employees Association. Below this matter, the names and other particulars of the respondents are found printed thus : T. Amrutrao, President. Camp: Hyderabad ) K, Jacob, Chief Secretary D/- 30-12-1957. Bandreddi Veerayya, Kattatatayya, Members. The respondents are Amrutrao, Jacob and Veerayya respectively. The 1st respondent admitted in his statement that he got the "pamphlets" published, but pleaded that he had nothing to do with the printers address being shown on them and that the addresses of the respondents were given on them. Respondents 2 and 3 pleaded that they were not responsible for the absence of the publishers name on the pamphlets.

( 2 ) THE City Magistrate of Hyderabad who tried the case, observed in his judgment that the prosecution ought to have been launched in the Secunderabad Court. But it is conceded that no point of Jurisdiction arises. There is also no dispute that the name of the printer and the place of printing have been altogether omitted to be minted on the leaflets. The Magistrates grounds for acquitting the respondents are (1) that the names of the respondents who are the publishers and the place of publication by them are actually printed on the pamphlets and there is sufficient compliance with the latter part of Section 3 and (2) that as regards the first part of Section 3, the obligation to print the name of the printer and the place of printing is On the printer done and not on the publisher and therefore none of the respondents is liable for this omission. Both these grounds are assailed in the appeal, as being founded on an erroneous construction of Sections. 3 and 12 of the Act.

( 3 ) SECTIONS 3 and 12 of the Act are in the following terms:"3. Every book or paper minted within British India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing and if the book or paper be published the name of the publisher and the place of publication. 12. Whoever shall print or publish any book or paper otherwise than in conformity with the rule contained in Section 3 of this Act shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished by fine not exceeding Rs. 2000. 00 or by simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or by both. "

( 4 ) SRI V. V. Siva Rao, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, contends that Ex. P-l, which id a single sheet with four pages in octavo size, is neither a pamphlet coming within the definition of book in Section 1 of the Act, nor a paper coming within the intendment of the Act. But by the Amendment Act 55 of 1955, a definition of the word paper has been newly inserted in Section 1. The definition is " paper" means any document including a news-paper, other than a book. "the word document has been defined in Section 3 (18) of the General Clauses Act X of 1897 thus: document shall include any matter written, expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means which is intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. "it is unnecessary to refer to the defini







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top