IN RE: T.S. CHOCKALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the editor, printer and publisher of the vernacular daily paper "Dinasari." He has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, of offences punishable under Clause 5 (1) of the Newspaper Control Order, 1942, on the ground that he had published during the weeks ending 25th June, 1944, and 2nd July, 1944, newsprint covering 28 and 32 pages respectively, in violation of Clause 5 (1) of the said Newspaper Control Order limiting the number of pages to be published in a week to 26, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 on each count.

(2.) THERE are no disputes about the facts of this case; but what was contended was that no prosecution can lie under the Newspaper Control Order of 1942, as it was superseded by the Newspaper Control Order of 1944, which came into force on 17th July, 1944, which contained no provisions similar to Clauses (1) of the earlier Order, and that on the date on which he was prosecuted there was no law in the Statute book under which he had committed any offence in respect of the acts complained of. In short, the argument was that even though it was an offence under the Order as it stood on the date on which the publications were made, still by reason of the fact that the law which he is said to have contravened was superseded and ceased to be the law on the date on which he was prosecuted he could not be held to be guilty of any offence.

(3.) MY attention has not been drawn to any provision of law governing the interpretation of the Newspaper Control Order. In the absence of any legislative enactment, Courts have to apply principles of equity and good conscience analogous to the principles of the General Clauses Act. The printing and publishing of newspapers during the weeks ending 25th June, 1944 and 2nd July, 1944, containing 28 and 32 pages respectively became an offence at the end of each of those two weeks when the newspapers were published with the number of pages mentioned above. There can be no doubt that the appellant was guilty of having committed offences under the Newspaper Control Order of 1942 on those dates.