Disclosure of name of printer and press on any printed material opposed to Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution.

This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in C.C. No. 10098 of 1955.

The facts are: The Revision Petitioner Alavandar is the keeper of the Jana Sakthi Press at No. 38, Mount Road, Madras-6. It was found from two pamphlets entitled " Madras Preparatory Committee 5th World Festival of Youth and Students for Peace and Friendship " and its Tamil equivalent, that the petitioner had failed to print on them the name of the printer and the press as required under section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and Rule 2 of the Rules framed under section 20 of the said Act. Therefore the Chief Presidency Magistrate filed a complaint under section 12 of the aforesaid Act.

The statement of this Alavandar was that he was the keeper of the Jana Sakthi Press, that the pamphlets in question were printed at the said Press, that the name of the printer and the press as required under section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act and Rule a of the Rules have not been printed and that the omission to print the name of the printer and the place of printing was duff to oversight. But he pleaded not guilty as he contended that section 3 of the impugned Act was inconsistent with the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) to all citizens, viz., the right to freedom of speech and expression. The learned Magistrate who was requested to make a reference under section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declined to do so on the ground that first of all there was no restriction of the right to the freedom of speech and expression and secondly, that even if there was such a restriction, it was a reasonable restriction imposed in the interests of the general public and saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he found the accused guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 4. Hence this Revision.

Act XXV of 1867 as amended by Act XIV of 1922 is an Act for the regulation of Printing-presses and Newspapers, for the preservation of copies of books printed in British India, and for the registration of such books. The preamble states:

"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the regulation of printing-presses and of periodicals containing news, for the preservation of copies of every book printed or lithographed in British India, and for the registration of such books "

Section 3 with which alone we are concerned here states:

"Every book or paper printed 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 ".

An omission to comply with section 3 is punishable under section 12 of the said Act. In order to understand section 3, we must also bear in mind section 4, which states:

"No person shall, within (British) India, keep in his possession any press for the printing of books or papers who shall not have made and subscribed the following declaration before the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such press may be:

‘I, A. B., declare that I have a press for printing at......“

And this last blank shall be filled up with a true and precise description of the place where such press may be situate”.

The object and scope of sections 3 and 4 appear to be a double-motived one. The first is that the executive authorities shall note where the press is situated and the second is that they shall know who is the person in charge. A removal of the premises clearly deprives the executive authorities of their knowledge as to the location of the press. But the same cannot be said where there is a change in the personnel of the keeper of the press: Raghubar Singh v. Emperor1. The Act does not require a new declaration in cases where a press, as to which the printer has made the declaration prescribed by section 4 is changed to another locality within the same local jurisdiction as the fo