STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. C N RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against an order dismissing an application for an order under Section 4 Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951. The application was filed in the Court of Session, Greater Bombay by the Commissioner of Police, on 19-101954, under Section 16, Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951, for an order demanding security from the respondent tinder Section 4 of the Act.' The learned principal Judge who tried the case held that impugned publications did not offend the terms of Section 3 of the Act. He Held that the publication was not "grossly indecent or obscene" within the meaning of Section 3(vi) of the Act. The learned principal Judge therefore dismissed the application. An appeal has been filed against the order of dismissal of the application by the Commissioner of Police.

(2.) On behalf of the respondent several preliminary objections have been raised against the maintainability of the appeal. Mr. Patwardhan contended that the Commissioner of Police was not competent to appeal to this Court because he has not been specially authorised in that behalf by notification issued by the State Government. He further contended that the printing press belonging to the respondent "is" not being used at this date for printing or publishing any objectionable matter, & even If this Court takes a view different from the view taken by the Court of first instance, it has no jurisdiction to pass an order demanding security under Section 4. Finally it was contended that the appeal filed is barred by the law of limitation.

(3.) NOW the right to prefer an appeal is conferred by Section 23 of the Act upon the competent authority or any other person aggrieved by an order passed by a Sessions Judge under Sections 4, 5, 7 and 8. A competent authority is defined in Section 2(c) of the Act as meaning "any officer empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the State Government". By a notification issued by the Government oi Bombay on 1-2-1953, the Commissioner of Police for Greater Bombay and the District Magistrate of each district are empowered to exercise the powers of a competent authority under Sections 4, 5, Sub-section (2) of Section 6, Sections 7, 8 and 17 of the Act within their respective jurisdictions. Relying upon this notification Mr. Patwardhan Contended that when, the State Government has not expressly conferred upon the Commissioner of Police the power of a competent authority to prefer an appeal under Section 23, the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Police must be regarded as incompetent We are unable to accept that contention. It is undisputed that the Commissioner of Police is by the notification, made a competent authority. It was the Commissioner of Police who filed the application under Section 4 of the Act to the Court of Session against the respondent and the appeal has been pre-ferred by the Commissioner of police. The Commissioner of Police being a competent authority the right to prefer an appeal must, in our judgment, be regarded as having been conferred upon him by the Legislature and no additional power is required to be conferred upon him by a notification before he can exercise that right. The first contention must, therefore, fail.