MANOHAR DAMODAR PATIL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications under Section 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, by the keeper of the Jai Gujarat Printing Press and the printer and publisher of the newspaper Mashal. The keeper made a declaration on 17th June 1949, and he was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000 which he deposited on 24th June 1949. Government issued a notice on 24th November 1949, purporting to be under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of this Act, calling upon him to deposit with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, the sum of Rs. 3,000 on or before 6th December 1949. This notice was in connection with an article that appeared in a paper called the Mashal, dated 24th September 1949. This paper is published both in Gujarati and in Marathi. It would be convenient to deal first with the application of the keeper, because, in our opinion, the technical objection raised by Mr. Jhaveri must prevail.

(2.) Now, when a deposit is made and a security is given, the law permits the Provincial Government under Section 4 to forfeit the deposit, and in this case, although the deposit was made, Government have not forfeited the deposit but have purportad to act under Section 3, Sub-section (3). Now, under that section, Government can only act when security has not been required under the provisions of the Act, or, having been required, has been refunded under Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Act; and the provision of Sub-section (2) is that, when security which has been required has been deposited and for a period of three months no order is made by Government forfeiting that security, then the security shall, on an application by the keeper of the press be refunded . Now, in this case, although three months had expired, no application was made by the keeper for the refund of the security, and therefore the amount deposited continued to remain as security with Government. The Advocate General has contended that, after the period of three months, the security becomes refundable to the keeper, and therefore it is not open to Government to forfeit the security but it must act under Sub-section (3) of Section 3. In our opinion, the Legislature has not provided that the powers of Government under Section 3 can be exercised when the security required has become liable to be refunded. The language used by the Legislature is "having been required has been refunded under Sub-section (2)." Therefore, there must be an application by the keeper and actual refund by Government before Government can act under Section 3, Sub-section (3). Till such an eventuality happens, the deposit may continue to remain as security with Government, and Government can forfeit the security. As Government have not forfeited the security, and the sum of Rs. 1,000 still continues to be with Government, an order under Section 3, Sub-section (3), is not justified. Therefore, apart from the question of merits, with which I will now deal, the application of the keeper must succeed.

(3.) The printer and publisher of the paper Mashal also made a declaration and made a deposit of RS. 1,000 for each of the Gujarati and the Marathi papers, and the sum of RS. 2,000, was deposited on 1st September 1949, a declaration having been made on 26th August 1949, under Section 5, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. In the case of the printer and publisher also, a notice was served by Government on 24th November 1949, forfeiting the deposits of Rs. 1,000 each in respect of each of the papers, inasmuch as, according to Government, the issues of the two papers, of 24th September 1949, contained words described in Clause (d) and (f) of Sub-section (l) of Section (4), Press (Emergency Powers) Act. Therefore, the question that we have to consider is whether the article which is the offending article according to Government, falls within either Clause (d) or Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4.