CHINGANGBAM GOURAHARI SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, the petitioner who is the proprietor and keeper of a Printing Press, called the Azad Printing Works in Paona Bazar, Imphal, is challenging his conviction under Section 188, I.P.C. and under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. He was sentenced by the S.D.M., I.W. to one month's S.I. under Section 188, I.P.C. and two months' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/ - under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. But the appellate Court while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintained the sentence of fine.

(2.) ON 28.4.1960, a pamphlet Ext. A/1 was published in Imphal in the name of the Assembly Demand Co -ordination Committee, It showed that the name of the printer was mentioned by the initials 'A.P.W.' which stood for Azad Printing Works, Ext. A/1 contained the offending words "Maneater Raina go back". At that time the agitation demanding a Legislative Assembly was in full swing in Manipur, end the District Magistrate had issued the order Ext. A/13 under Section 144, Cri.P.C. on 25.4.1960 prohibiting any person from publishing, printing, selling or distributing any unauthorised or unsigned news, pamphlet or hand -bill. A search warrant was issued on 30.4.1960 and the original manuscript Ext. A/2 and some printed copies of the pamphlet Ext. A/1 were seized from the Azad Printing Works. It will be seen from the original manuscript that it was signed by one Th. Bira Singh for the Assembly Demand Co -Ordination Committee, but in the printed pamphlet, the name was omitted and merely "Assembly Demand Co -Ordination Committee" was mentioned.

(3.) TO prove this he also produced some defence exhibits which I find were not given any marking as exhibits by the Magistrate. It is enough, to say that out of such defence exhibits, two were pamphlets issued by Gopendra Sarma, Publicity Officer, Manipur Administration, mid lour were Press notes issued in the name of the Publicity Branch of the Manipur Administration, in none of which the name of the printer and the place of printing were mentioned. Only the initials 'G.P.M.' were given, below, just like the initials 'A.P.W.' in Ext. A/1. The name of the publisher was not mentioned in any, one of them. These were produced by the defence to show that even the Manipur Administration did not observe the provisions of Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 by giving the names of the printer and publisher and the place of printing' in the pamphlets and press notes issued by the Publicity Department and so the omission on the part of the petitioner cannot be seriously regarded as an offence. Certain other printed matter published by private people in Manipur were also -produced for the defence which also did not contain the name of the printer and publisher and the place of printing.