Order.- In this case the First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, has made a reference under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First-Class, Gokak, dated 22nd November, 1971 in C.C. No. 1954 of 1971, by which the Magistrate, on the complaint of one Yamanappa Siddappa Arabhavi, President, Gokak Girani Rashtriya Mazadoor Sangh, against the accused, who was the General Manager of the Gokak Mills Ltd., Gokak, took cognizance of the offence under sections 3 and 4, punishable under sections 12 and 13 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (XXV of 1867) hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, and issued process against the accused.

2. The case of the complainant was that the Gokak Mills owned a Printing Press.

The accused being the General Manager of the Mills was in charge and control of the press. Pamphlets were printed and distributed without bearing the name of the printer and publisher, place of printing and publication. The accused had not made any declaration before the District Magistrate as required under section 4 of the Act.

3. The only question raised by this revision is “whether the complainant as a common informer is entitled to complain against the accused for taking action under sections 12 and 13 of the Act.

4. It was argued by Mr. B.V. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the accused, that no man can complain for that in which he has no interest; and a common man can have no interest in an action of this nature unless it is expressly or by some sufficient implication given to him by the statute. The State and the State alone is charged generally with the execution and enforcement of penal laws enacted by public statutes for the public good and is interested in all penalties imposed by such statutes and therefore may complain for them in due course of law where no provision is made to the contrary. According to him, the complaint, if at all, should have been made by the District Magistrate. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision in Charles Bradlaugh v. Henry Lewis Clarke1. In that case the question for decision was whether a common informer could sue for the penalties imposed by statute 29 & 30 Vict. c. 19 upon a member of the House of Commons sitting and voting in that house without having taken the oath prescribed by that Act. The words of the material clause (section 5) were these:

“If any member of the House of Peers votes, by himself or his proxy, in the House of Peers, or sits as a Peer during any debate in the said House, without having made and subscribed the oath hereby appointed, he shall for every such offence be subject to a penalty of £500 to be recovered by action in one of Her Majesty’s Superior Courts at Westminster; and if any member of the House of Commons votes as such in the said House, or sits during any debate after the Speaker has been chosen without having made and subscribed the oath hereby appointed, he shall be subject to a like penalty for every such offence; and, in addition to such penalty, his seat shall be vacated in the same manner as if he were dead."

Dealing with this question their Lordships of the Privy Council said:

" Where a penalty is created by statute and nothing is said as to who may recover it and it is not created for the benefit of a party grieved, and the offence is not against an individual, it belongs to the Crown, and the Grown alone can maintain a suit for it.

To enable a common informer to maintain an action for a penalty created by statute, an interest in the penalty must be given to him by express words or by sufficient implication. "

On the principle that no man can sue for that in which he has no interest and a common informer can have no interest in a penalty of the nature mentioned in the section stated above, their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the common informer could not sue to recover the penalty imposed by the said section. The principle laid down in this case has n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document