Back
MANIPUR HIGH COURT
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.C.
Chingangbam Gourahari Singh : Petitioner
v.
Union Territory of Manipur : Respondent
Criminal Revn. Case No. 10 of 1961
Decided On : 12 -6 -1961
PRESS AND REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT, 1867 - SEC. 3, 12 - PRINTING PRESS - LIABILITY OF PROPRIETOR FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 - PRINTING OF INITIALS OF PRESS INSTEAD OF FULL NAME - WHETHER SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE - PENAL CODE, SEC. 188 - PRINTING OF OFFENSIVE MATTER - WHETHER ANNOYANCE CAUSED TO PERSONS LAWFULLY EMPLOYED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the proprietor of a printing press, was convicted under Sec. 188, I. P. C. and under Sec. 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. He was sentenced to one month's S. I. under Section 188, I. P. C. and two months' S. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Sec. 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The appellate Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintained the sentence of fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was liable for the violation of Sec. 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, as it was his duty to ensure that the name of the printer and the place of printing were printed on the pamphlet. The court also held that the printing of the initials of the press instead of the full name was not sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Act. The court further held that the printing of the pamphlet containing the words "maneater Raina go back" caused annoyance to persons lawfully employed and was therefore a violation of Sec. 188, I. P. C.
Issues: 1. Whether the proprietor of a printing press is liable for the violation of Sec. 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, if the name of the printer and the place of printing are not printed on the pamphlet? 2. Whether the printing of the initials of the press instead of the full name is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Act? 3. Whether the printing of the pamphlet containing the words "maneater Raina go back" caused annoyance to persons lawfully employed and was therefore a violation of Sec. 188, I. P. C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the proprietor of a printing press is liable for the violation of Sec. 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, as it is his duty to ensure that the name of the printer and the place of printing are printed on the pamphlet. The court relied on the fact that the section directs the name of the printer and the place of printing to be printed and Sec. 12 of the Act makes the printing otherwise than in conformity with the rule contained in section 3 an offence. 2. The court held that the printing of the initials of the press instead of the full name was not sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Act. The court reasoned that the intention of the Act is that the printed matter must show who printed it and at what place, and that this information is not provided by the printing of the initials. 3. The court held that the printing of the pamphlet containing the words "maneater Raina go back" caused annoyance to persons lawfully employed and was therefore a violation of Sec. 188, I. P. C. The court relied on the fact that Mr. Raina is the Chief Commissioner of Manipur and that to characterise him as a maneater would certainly cause annoyance not only to him, but also to the employees of the Administration working under him and to other law abiding citizens.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed except to the extent that the sentence of fine imposed under section 12 of the P. and R. of Books Act was set aside.
In this revision petition, the petitioner who is the proprietor and keeper of a Printing Press, called the Azad Printing Works in Paona Bazar, Imphal, is challenging his conviction under Sec.188, I. P. C. and under Sec. 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. He was sentenced by the S. D. M., I. W. to one month's S. I. under Section 188, I. P. C. and two months' S. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Sec. 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. But the appellate Court while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintained the sentence of fine.
2. On 28-4-1960, a pamphlet Ext. A/1 was published in Imphal in the name of the Assembly Demand Co-ordination Committee. It showed that the name of the printer was mentioned by the initials 'A. P. W.' which stood for Azad Printing Works. Ext. A/1 contained the offending words "Maneater Raina go back''. At that time the agitation demanding a Legislative Assembly was in full swing in Manipur, and the District Magistrate had issued the order Ext. A/13 under section 144, Cri. P. C. on 25-4-1960 prohibiting any person from publishing, printing, selling or distributing any unauthorised or unsigned news, pamphlet or hand-bill. A search warrant was issued on 30-4-1960 and the original manuscript Ext. A/2 and some printed copies of the pamphlet Ext A/1 were seized from the Azad Printing Works. It will be seen from the original manuscript that it was signed by one Th. Bira Singh for the Assembly Demand Co-Ordination Committee, but in the printed pamphlet, the name was omitted and merely ''Assembly Demand Co-Ordination Committee" was mentioned.
3. The petitioner was then charged as the keeper of the Printing Works under Sec. 188, I. P. C. for violation of the order under Sec. 144, Cri. P. C. and under sections 12 and 13 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, for violation of the rules under Secs. 3 and 4 of the said Act on the complaint of the District Magistrate. He was examined in the Magistrate's Court on 5-8-1960 before the regular trial started. He stated then that Ext. A/1 was printed in his Azad Printing Works on receipt of the manuscript with a forwarding letter from the Secretary, Co-ordination Committee of the Agitation and that the name, of the press was printed but not the location of the Press. This forwarding letter was not produced by him at the trial. In the subsequent statement dated 16-8-1960 after the prosecution evidence was let in he further added that most of the private Presses in Manipur do not follow the rules required under the Press and Regulation of Books Act strictly and published material without giving the particulars.
4. To prove this he also produced some defence exhibits which I find were not given any marking as exhibits by the Magistrate. It is enough to say that out of such defence exhibits, two were pamphlets issued by Gopendra Sarma, Publicity Officer, Manipur Administration, and four were Press notes issued in the name of the Publicity Branch of the Manipur Administration, in none of which the name of the printer and the place of printing were mentioned. Only the initials 'G. P. M.' were given, below, just like the initials 'A. P. W.' in Ext. A/1. The name of the publisher was not mentioned in any one of them. These were produced by the defence to show that even the Manipur Administration did not observe the provisions of Sec. 3 of the, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 by giving the names of the printer and publisher and the place of printing in the pamphlets and press notes issued by the Publicity Department and so the omission on the part of the petitioner cannot be seriously regarded as an offence. Certain other printed matter published by private people in Manipur were also produced for the defence which also did not contain the name of the printer and publisher and the place of printing.
5. We are not now concerned with the offence under Sec. 13 o
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
