Sarjoo Prasad, J.

1. In this case the petitioner, who is the keeper of the Bharati Press, Purulia, has moved under Sec.23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII 23. of 1931) (herein, after called the Press Act) for setting aside an order calling upon him to deposit security under Sub-section (3) of Sec.3 of the said Act.

2. On 9-9 1949, a notice was served by affixing a copy thereof on the premises of the said Bharati Press. The notice is dated Ranchi 8-9-1949, and is addressed to the keeper of the Bharati Press, Purulia. It has been signed by one B. K. Dutt, described as Under Secretary to Government and "by order of the Governor of Bihar" requiring the said keeper to deposit with the Deputy Commissioner Manbhum, on or before 19-9 1949, security to the amount of Rs. 2,000 in money or in Government securities. This demand for security, as appears from the notice, has been made under Sub-section (3) of Sec.3, Press Act, and the notice further recites that the demand for security has been made inasmuch as

it appears to the Governor of Bihar that the Bharati Press, Purulia, is used for the purpose of printing and publishing matters specified in the schedule annexed hereto which are of the nature described in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.1, Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 , (XXIII [23] of 1931)."

In the schedule to the notice is mentioned "The Bengalee leaflet entitled Sangram.

3 The petitioner in his application challenges the validity of the demand of security mainly on two grounds : Firstly that the said notice demanding security from the petitioner is illegal because it does not state the "words, signs or visible representations" of the nature described in Sub-section (1) of Section 4, Press Act; and secondly that the Bengali leaflet entitled San-gram does not contain any "words, signs or visible representations" of the nature described in Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4, Press Act. There was a further ground taken in the petition itself which was to the effect that the press of the petitioner did not print or publish any leaflet entitled Sangram that is of the nature described in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 4, Press Act. But it has been conceded in argument before the Court that the leaflet in question had been, printed and published by the press of the petitioner. Therefore, so far as the factum of printing and publication of the offending document is concerned, there seems to be no dispute. The arguments have thus been confined to the two points stated above as also to a further point which was subsequently raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for the first time in arguments before the Court. The point is one of constitutional importance. It is to the effect that Section 4 (1), Press Act, is inconsistent with. Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and, as such, is void; and, therefore, the State Government or the Provincial Government had no jurisdiction to take any action against the petitioner on account of any violation of the said provision of the Press Act.

4. The learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State objected to the last question being raised at a late stage of the hearing. The point being one of constitutional importance, the learned Government Advocate claimed that he should have been given sufficient notice of the matter and the petitioner, therefore, should not be allowed to raise this question. It is true that this constitutional point has been raised at a very late stage of the proceedings and ordinarily the Court would have been disinclined to entertain it, but as the question is one of importance and affects the very jurisdiction of the State Government to take action under the specified provisions of the Press Act, the petitioner could not be shut out from raising the question even though at a late stage of the proceedings.

5. The records disclose that a copy of the offending leaflet Sangram was not attached to the notice which was served on the petition