TARAMATI PRANLAL SHAH Vs. ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KUTCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the owner and keeper of a printing press styled as Tara Printery and also claims to be in possession thereof. According to her brother one Shantilal Jevatlal Shah her husband Pranlal Nanchand Shah and she entered into a partnership in 1949 and that partnership then carried on the business of printing in the name and style of Pravin Printery. Thereafter disputes arose between the parties and Shantilal filed a civil suit being Suit No 84 of 1951 in the District Court at Bhuj for the dissolution of the partnership on January 2 1953 a consent decree was passed in that suit whereunder the partnership was dissolved and the press with all its goodwill and assets was taken over by the petitioner and the petitioner started her own business of printing as the sole owner in the name of Tara Printery According to her the press was run by her under a declaration made by her as the keeper and owner thereof under sec. 4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 and her brother the said Shantilal acted as her manager. But as the work of the press entailed going often to Government offices she allowed Shantilal to make a declaration under sec. 4 of the Act in his own name as the keeper although in fact she was the owner and in actual possession of the printing press. That happened in 1956 According to her case Shantilal misused the trust reposed by her in him and started entertaining a dishonest intention to appropriate the press and therefore the petitioner relieved him of his post as her manager. Shantilal thereafter applied for the cancellation of the declaration made by him in 1956 as the keeper of Tara Printery. On August 13 1959 the petitioner gave an intimation to the Additional District Magistrate that she intended to carry on business as the keeper of that press and on September 12 1959 she filed a declaration under sec 4 of the Act to the effect that she was the keeper of the said press.

(2.) On September 11 1959 the Additional District Magistrate give notice to her that Shantilal who as aforesaid had filed a declaration as the keeper of Tara Printery and who had got it subsequently cancelled had made a fresh declaration to the effect that he was the keeper of the said press but this time in the name and style of Shanti Press. There being thus two declarations by two individuals as keepers of the same press a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Additional District Magistrate to furnish information about the location of the press of which she claimed to be the keeper with certain particulars as regards the ward number house number etc where the press was kept. That enquiry was made by the then Additional District Magistrate and ultimately on September 12 1959 the then Additional District Magistrate accepted the declaration of the petitioner under sec. 4 of the Act. According to the petitioner she has since then been carrying on business as the keeper of the said press in the name and style of Tara Printery.

(3.) In the meantime Shantilal filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner her husband and certain other individuals alleging therein that he was the rightful owner of the press and charged the petitioner her husband and others of trespass and other offences An order issuing a search warrant was thereafter made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in that criminal case and the learned Judicial Magistrate also issued a notice to show cause why the said press should not be attached. We may observe that against that order the husband of the petitioner but not the petitioner although she claimed to be the owner of the press filed a revision application in this Court being Civil Revision Application No. 152 of 1960.