RAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The applicant Rameshwarprasad was convicted by the Subdiviaional Magistrate, First Glass, Jubhulpore, under Sections 12, 13 and 15, Act 25 of 1867 and sentenced to a fine amounting to Rs. 350 for the three offences. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Sessions Judge on appeal, and the applicant now applies for revision.

(2.) THE facts of the case have been stated in the previous judgments and are not in dispute. The only point to be determined is whether the interpretation put by the Courts below on the word "printing," as used in Sections 3, 4 and, 5 of the Act, is correct or not. Admittedly the applicant published copies of a paper called "Lokaiat Samachar," which he produced by means of a Roneo duplicator, and the point is whether such production, which is called cyclostyling, can be considered to be printing" within the meaning of the Act, and whether a Roneo duplicator can be considered a "printing press" within the meaning of Section 4.

(3.) THE Magistrate has justified his finding by a reference to the definition of "a printing press" as given in Act 7 of 1908, which is an Act now repealed, and which definition has been reproduced in the judgment of the Sessions Judge. The Magistrate also referred to the definition of "printing" given in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The Sessions Judge has accepted the Magistrate's reasoning and has also referred to two passages in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, at pp. 484 and 62 (6th Edn). The first passage refers to the interpretation of statutes according to the intention of the legislature, and the second refers to the exposition of the language of one Act by the language of another. As regards the first passage from Maxwell, I can see no justification for the view that the legislature, when enacting Act 25 of 1667, intended to include typewriters, duplicators or such, like machines within the scope of the Act; whilst, as regards the second, although it is true that one Act may be interpreted or explained by another Act, which is in pari materia, still, even taking the definition of a printing press, as has been done by the Magistrate, from the subsequent Act of 1908, we are met with the same difficulty, because "printing" is not therein defined, but a "printing press" is only defined, as including all engines, machinery, types, lithographic stones, implements, utensils and other plant and materials used for the purposes of printing, It is somewhat doubtful whether this definition, wide as it is, would include a Eoneo duplicator, and whether taking impressions from a wax paper would amount to printing.