The court clarified the limited scope of jurisdiction in verifying declarations under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.

1The petitioners are doing business in partnership in T.C. No. 944 of Ulloor Village which was taken on rent from the second respondent. Before commencing the business the first petitioner made a declaration under S. 4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 regarding the custody of the press kept in the building Such a declaration can be made by a keeper of the press and need not necessarily be the owner of the press. It is the contention of the petitioners that with ulterior motive the second respondent filed a complaint before the first respondent which is produced as Ext. P1 It is alleged in that complaint that the licence was obtained by the petitioners by making false declaration and in violation of the Rules and therefore requested the first respondent to take immediate action against the culprits. To Ext. P1, it would appear, a counter statement has been made before the first respondent stating that he has no jurisdiction to pass any order or make any enquiry. The petitioners also approached this Court by way of writ petition which was disposed of at the admission stage itself by Ext. P3 judgment. This Court directed the first respondent to decide the question of jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint. Thereafter the first respondent, after hearing the parties passed an order, namely, Ext. P4 in which it is stated that when a complaint is raised before a Magistrate regarding the declaration filed before him, he has jurisdiction to verify whether a proper declaration as per the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 has been filed by the concerned person. It is further stated that if there is no proper declaration as per S.4 of the Act in respect of Chempaka Printing Press, Kesavadasapuram, he will have to take action against those who are at fault.

2 The apprehension of the petitioners is that the notice issued by the first respondent is for cancellation of the declaration.

3 Heard counsel for the petitioners and also the Government Pleader.

4 The Government Pleader on behalf of the first respondent made it clear that the enquiry now proposed is only a limited enquiry to come to a preliminary conclusion as to whether the complaint made in Ext. P1 is correct or not. The complaint made is that a false declaration has been filed. This has to be ascertained. It is only to ascertain the veracity of this the notice has been issued to the petitioners. After hearing the parties a decision has to be taken as to whether further steps as contemplated under the Act for prosecuting the petitioners under S.13 and 14 of the Act should be taken. In other words, the enquiry is limited for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to a prima facie case. There is no proposal to cancel the declaration. There is no proposal to cancel the licence and there is no licence at all. If the first respondent comes to the conclusion that there has been a false declaration he can proceed only under S.13 and 14 of the Act by filing a complaint against the culprit.

5 Two decisions have been brought to my notice by counsel for the petitioners. The first is the decision reported in Apparao v. Lakshminarayana, AIR 1962 SC 586. That is only an authority for the proposition that a declared keeper of the press is not necessarily the owner thereof so as to be able to confer title to the press upon another. The ownership of the press is a matter of the general law and must follow that law. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the press in this case. Therefore that decision has no application to this case.

6 The second decision referred to is the one reported in Mrs. Taramathi V. A. DM. Kutch, AIR 1964 Gujarat 278. In that case the petitioner claimed to be the owner and keeper of a printing press styled as Tara Printery and she made a declaration under S. 4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and her brother Shantilal acted as manager. But as the work of the press entailed going often to Government Offices, she allowed Shant