PATTAMMAL ARUMUGAM Vs. CHIEF PRESIDENCY MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. M. P. No. 1941 of 1950 : The question for decision in this case falls within a narrow compass. The petitioner is the owner of a printing press. She filed an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras City for declaring herself as the keeper of the press on 18-1-1950 as required under the Press and Registration of Books Act, (xxv [25] of 1867). On or about 13 2 1950 the Chief Presidency Magistrate passed an order purporting to be under Section 3 (1) of the Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, XXIII [23] of 1931 calling upon the petitioner to deposit with him within ten days from that date a security of Rs. 1000 either in cash or in Government of India securities. The reasons for this order were contained in the preamble which ran thus,

(2.) Under Section 4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, XXV [25] of 1867, no person shall keep in his possession any press for the printing of books or paper who shall not have made and subscribed a declaration before the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such press may be, that he has a press for printing at a particular place, true and precise description of which is given in the declaration Section 3(1) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, XXIII [23] of 1931 runs as follows :

(3.) Section 3 (2) provides that where security has been deposited as required and for a period of three months from the date of the declaration, no order is made by the Government under Section 4 forfeiting such security, the security shall, on application by the keeper of the press, be refunded. Section 23 (1) of the Act confers on the keeper of a press a right to apply to the High Court to set aside certain orders passed under the Act including an order to deposit security passed under Sub-section (3) of Section 3, but it was not disputed that there is no provision in the Act which confers on the keeper of the press the right to apply to this Court to set aside an order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 23 (2) of the Act no doubt entitles the keeper of the press to challenge an order of forfeiture made under Sub-section (2) of Section 12, but only on the ground that the press was not used in contravention of a Subsection (1). It is obvious therefore that the petitioner has no other remedy to get rid of the order passed against her.