PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. T AMRATH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the three respondents upon a charge under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act XXV of 1867 (hereinafter called the Act). The prosecution case is that the respondents published at Hyderabad printed Telugu leaflets, one of which has been marked as Ex. P-l, without the names of the printer and of the publisher and the place of printing and of publication being printed on them. The leaflets were printed at the Pearl Press, Secunderabad. The evidence of P. W. 1, the proprietor of the press is that on or about 27-12-1957, the 1st respondent gave him the order to print them and that on 31-12-1957, the 1st respondent took delivery of 500 out of 1000 copies that were printed. The matter printed in the leaflets may be shortly described as an appeal to police men to support the Andhra Pradesh. Police Employees Association. Below this matter, the names and other particulars of the respondents are found printed thus : T. Amrutrao, President. Camp: Hyderabad ) K, Jacob, Chief Secretary D/- 30-12-1957. Bandreddi Veerayya, KattaTatayya, Members. The respondents are Amrutrao, Jacob and Veerayya respectively. The 1st respondent admitted in his statement that he got the "pamphlets" published, but pleaded that he had nothing to do with the printers address being shown on them and that the addresses of the respondents were given on them. Respondents 2 and 3 pleaded that they were not responsible for the absence of the publishers name on the pamphlets.

(2.) The City Magistrate of Hyderabad who tried the case, observed in his judgment that the prosecution ought to have been launched in the Secunderabad Court. But it is conceded that no point of Jurisdiction arises. There is also no dispute that the name of the printer and the place of printing have been altogether omitted to be minted on the leaflets. The Magistrates grounds for acquitting the respondents are (1) that the names of the respondents who are the publishers and the place of publication by them are actually printed on the pamphlets and there is sufficient compliance with the latter part of Section 3 and (2) that as regards the first part of Section 3, the obligation to print the name of the printer and the place of printing is On the printer done and not on the publisher and therefore none of the respondents is liable for this omission. Both these grounds are assailed in the appeal, as being founded on an erroneous construction of Sections. 3 and 12 of the Act.

(3.) Sections 3 and 12 of the Act are in the following terms: