PARAS DASS JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 200 only. In default of payment of fine, he is required to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) A complaint was lodged by the State Press Officer, Delhi, or 19th September, 1963 in the Court of Shri M. M. Aggarwal, Magistrate, First Class, Delhi, that (1) respondent Paras Dass, Jain published two handbills captioned "Janta Ko in Desh Drohiyon Se Bachaiye" and "Safed Posh Dakuon Se Savdhan", (2) under section 3 of the said Act, he was required to give the names of the printer and publisher and the places of printing the publication on the handbills, which he failed to do; and (3) under section 12 of the said Act, he was liable to penalty. The trial Court decided against the petitioner and convicted and sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, which was dismissed on 12th October, 1964.

(3.) The first contention raised by Mr. Keshav Dayal on behalf of the petitioner is that a publisher of any book or paper cannot be convicted under the said Act in as much as section 3 only refers to the printing of a book or paper and not its publication. According to the learned counsel, the words "or publish any book or paper otherwise than in conformity with the rule contained in section 3" in section 12 make no meaning and, therefore, the words "or publish" must be ignored. In support of this plea, he has relied on Abdul Hakim v. State. In that judgment, the view urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was upheld. It is difficult for me to accept that contention and place that limited meaning on section 12 of the said Act. Section 3 requires that "every book or paper printed within India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing, and if the book or paper be Pub lished the name of the publisher and the "place of publication". Section 12 says that whoever shall print or publish any book or paper otherwise than in conformity with the rule contained in section 3 shall, on conviction etc., be punished. It follows that if a book, which does not fulfil the requirements of section 3, is published, the person responsible for the publication would be punishable under section 12. Take a Case where a person goes to a press and gets a paper or a book printed for public use. If that book or paper is to be published, it can be published only if it contains the name of the publisher and the place of publication. Publication of a book or paper not containing those particulars would be in violation of section 12. Such a publisher would, therefore, be guilty. In Abdul Hakim's case, M. C. Desai, J. said, he could be gulity under section 12 only if he published it otherwise than in conformity with the provision of section 3, but section 3 does not govern the act of publishing at all. The act of printing is quite distinct from the act of publishing and section 3 only regulates the act of printing, it requires certain matters to be printed in the book. Merely because one of the matters to be printed in the book is the name of the publisher and the place of publishing, it cannot be said that it regulates the act of publishing. If the name of the publisher and the place of publication are not printed, it is only the printing that can be said to be not in conformity with the provision of section 3 and not the act of publishing." With utmost respect to the learned Judge, I am of the opinion that that is placing too narrow a construction on the language of section 12. The words "whoever shall print or publish any book or paper otherwise than in conformity with the rule contained in section 3 of this Act" must embrace within themselves the publication of a book or paper which does not bear the name of the publisher or the place of publication. If a publisher finds that the book, which he is seeking to publish, does not conform to the said requirement of section 3, he must either abstain from publishing it or suffer a penalty under section 12. That appears to me to be the true scope of section 12 when read with section 3. In Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh v. T. Amrath Rao, it was held that "it is also his duty to see that the book or paper complies with section 3 and to refrain from publishing it if the requirements are not satisfied." In my humble opinion that is the correct approach to section 12.