PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT Vs. S. WILAYAT HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question here is about the effect of an omission to renew a wireless license for the possession of a receiving set within 14 days from the date of expiry of the old license. We have in effect to choose between two conflicting principles, one enunciated by the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Ramdas Nathubhai Shah in connexion with a motor driving license and the other by the Madras High Court in In re A.S. Pandian A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 821 in connexion with a wireless receiving set. The respondent is the City Superintendent of Police at Jubbulpore. He possessed a wireless receiving set and held a license which expired on 31st May 1941. He did not renew it till 27th June 1941. On that date he paid the renewal fee and was granted a license by the postmaster at Jubbulpore which expired on 31st May 1942. The ease for the Crown is that though an existing license must be renewed within the year, the rules allow a period of 14 days grace. Thus, according to the Crown, the respondent had time till 14th June 1941 to renew his license. As he did not renew it till 27th June 1941 he was 13 days out of time and was thus in illegal possession of a wireless set for these 13 days. He is being prosecuted under Section 6(1), Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, for this illegal possession. Before proceeding to analyse this Act and the rules it will be necessary to state some further facts as they will also have to be considered. When it was discovered that the renewal was 13 days beyond time, the Postmaster-General offered to compound for Rs. 20. The respondent refused and so the prosecution was launched. Section 6(1), Wireless Telegraphy Act, is as follows: Whoever possesses any wireless telegraphy apparatus in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 shall be punished, etc.

(2.) SECTION 3 of the Act states: Save as provided by Section 4 no person shall possess wireless telegraphy apparatus except under and in accordance with a license issued under this Act.

(3.) THE result is that in order to comply with the provisions of Section 3, Wireless Telegraphy Act, the possessor of a wireless receiving set has to obtain a license granted, not under' the Wireless Telegraphy Act, but under a different Act, and a license, not to possess the apparatus but "to establish, maintain and work it." There are, as we have said, good and sound reasons for this, but, it means that we have next to Study the provisions of Section 4, Telegraph Act of 1885, and the rules framed under that Act. Section 4, Telegraph Act, provides: Within British India, the Central Government shall have the exclusive privilege, of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs: Provided that the Central Governrnent may grant a license, on such conditions and in consideration of such payments as it thinks fit, to any person to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part of British India.