STATE OF U.P. Vs. SUMESHAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUMESHAR son of Ram Jag and Kateshar son of Sumeshar R/o Moh. Mangal Bazar, PS Kotwali, distt. Basti were challenged for an offence Under Section 3/12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1367 (hereinafter called the Act) for having failed to print the name of the printer and the place of its printing on a paper Ex. 2. By this omission, they contravened the provisions of Section 3 punishable Under Section 12 of the Act. They have been acquitted by the SDM, Basti vide the judgment and order dt. 24 -7 -1970. The State of U.P. has come up in appeal against the order of acquittal.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 21 -9 -1968 at about 4.40 p.m. Sri G.K. Saxena, SO Kotwali carried out a search of the Sumeshar Press in the presence of the opposite parties who were owners thereof. During the course of this search, they took a block Ex. 1, a paper Ex. 2 (which is now the disputed document) and a Badami copy Ex. 3. This paper Ex. 2 was printed at the Sumeshar Press but did not contain the name of the printer and the place of its printing.

(3.) IN defence Sumeshar Respondent No. 1 admitted that he was the owner of the Sumeshar Press. His plea was that the paper in question Ex Ka 2 is merely a receipt and that the name of the press is not necessary to be printed thereon as it is not a paper nor a book as contemplated under the Act. The Respondent No. 2 Kateshar denied that he was the owner of the press. He admitted that he was the son of the Respondent No. 1 but pleaded that he had not printed the paper. In defence Shyam Lal (DW 1) was produced. He stated that he had sent the matter Ex. Kha 1 to the press in question for printing. He had seen its proof, Ex. Kha 2 and had approved it. He has also stated that the paper in question is not a paper within the definition of the Act and is merely a receipt.