Abdur Rahim, Offg, C.J.

1. This is an application under Section 17 of the Indian Press Act of 1910 by Mrs. Annie Besant, the keeper and printer of the New India Printing Works, and the Editor of the news paper, "New India." The applicant seeks to have set aside an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras, dated 22nd May 1916, requiring her to deposit security of Rs. 2,000 under Section 3 (1) of the Act an order of the Governor-in-Council, dated 25th August 1916, declaring under Section 4(1) the security so deposited and all copies of "New India" wherever found to be forfeited to His Majesty. No copies of New India," it may be mentioned, have actually been seized.

2. The order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate is attacked, firstly, on the ground that inasmuch as the press and the newspaper in question were in existence before the passing of the Press Act under the names and styles respectively of The Standard Press and "The Madras Standard," the fact that the applicant, having purchased the said press, made a declaration before the Magistrate with respect thereto on the 2nd December 1914, under Section 4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867, in the new name of the "New India Printing Works" did not bring this press under the operation of Section 3 (1) of the Press Act. But clearly the provisions of the Act are applicable to all printing presses: under Section 3 (1) the Magistrate is to take security from any person who makes a declaration before him with respect to any printing press, apart from any question whether it was set up before or after the Act, and by sub Section 2 the Local Government, may in certain circumstances require the keeper of a press in respect of which a declaration was made before the commencement of the Act of 1910 to deposit security. Section 4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867 prohibits any person to keep a printing press without making a declaration to the effect that he has a press for printing purposes at a particular address, which he is bound to disclose. It is directed against the keepers of printing presses for the time being: so with every change of hands, a fresh declaration becomes necessary. In this way, the "New India" Printing Works became amenable to the action of the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 3 (1), when as required by the law a fresh declaration was made before him by the applicant. 1 may mention that a certified copy of a judgment of the Patna High Court, dated 5th June 1916, in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 1916, was cited before us in support of the applicants contention, but it is sufficient to say that I have not been able to find out what exactly was decided in that case.

3. The Chief Presidency Magistrate, however, chose to dispense with the deposit of security at the time the applicant made the declaration. And it is thereupon argued that he became functus officio so far as the press was concerned and was not competent to pass his subsequent order of 22nd May 1916. By Section 3(i), all keepers of printing presses are required to deposit security at the time of making the required declaration to such an amount, not exceeding Rs. 2,000, as the Magistrate may fix. Then comes the proviso, which says: Provided that the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, for special reasons to be recorded by him, dispense with the deposit of any security or may from time to time cancel or vary any order under this Sub-section." It is contended by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Crown that the words "to cancel or vary any order under this Sub-section" gives the Magistrate the power to cancel his order dispensing with security, although he derived authority to pass that order from the proviso itself. But it seems to me that the use of the words or may" before the words "cancel or vary any order under this Sub-section" goes to negative such a construction: it indicates that an order dispensing with the deposit of security is not in