MULLA, J.:- Udit Narain, the opposite party in this case, was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Pratapgarh, under S.12, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and was sentenced to a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows : One Sri Sarkar was the Deputy Commissioner of Pratapgarh. He was transferred from the district. Some residents of Pratapgarh did not like this transfer. A notice was printed on 2-4-1953, in which it was announced that a meeting of the residents of Pratapgarh would be held to oppose this order of transfer. The names of the Press as well as the Printer were not printed on the notice. The place where the notice was printed was also not printed in the notice. The matter was investigated by a C.I.D. Inspector, who took the permission of the District Magistrate for doing so.

In the course of his investigations, he found that this notice was printed at the Avadh Press and it was printed by the opposite party, who was the Assistant Manager of that Press. The opposite party was placed before a Magistrate for recording his statement and he admitted that it was a mistake that the particulars mentioned above were not printed in the notice. He also prayed that he should be pardoned as it was a sheer mistake and he had no intention of defying any law. The Magistrate, however, as mentioned above, convicted him.

3. Udit Narain appealed against this order of conviction and the Civil and Sessions Judge of Pratapgarh allowed his appeal on the ground that the notice printed by the opposite party cannot be held to be a paper within the meaning of S.3, Press and Registration of Books Act 1867. He relied on several authorities, which he quoted in his decision. It is against this order of acquittal that the State has come up in appeal.

4. The counsel for the State contends that the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the word paper in S.3 does not include a notice. According to him, the word paper means any piece of paper, which has been printed. He also relies on a decision - Amiya Kumar v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Cal 641 (A). In this decision a hand-bill was held to come within the definition of the word paper but the point was conceded by the counsel and the matter was not really argued. It is therefore of no help in interpreting the word paper.

5. Unfortunately the word paper has not been defined in the Press and Registration of Books Act (Act 25 of 1867). Normally where a word is not defined the proper course is to interpret it in its ordinary and natural meaning. But the difficulty in this case is that that if the natural meaning is given to the word paper it would lead to absurd and ridiculous results. As observed by Beaumont, C.J. in - Dattatraya Malhar v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Bom 28 (B):

"The Advocate General argues that the only meaning which can be given to the expression paper printed is that it includes every piece of paper on which any letter, figure or sign is printed, and that every such piece of paper falls within the mischief aimed at by the Act...... If the contention of the Advocate General be correct as to the meaning of paper it would seem to follow that offences against S.3 of the Act are committed by practically everybody from the Viceroy and Governors downwards. Every invitation to dinner or to a party of any sort which is printed, every printed notice from a club secretary to members, every printed visiting card would be "printed paper" within the meaning attributed to the expression by the Advocate General and would require to have printed upon it the name of the printer and place of printing".

It is, therefore, clear that the word paper cannot be construed in the ordinary and natural meaning of the word.

6. In interpreting the words of a statute, it is always necessary to consider the intention of the legislature. The intention of the legislature is to be judged from the preamble to