(BABU) MURALI MANOHAR PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Murali Manohar Prasad asks us to revise an order of the District Magistrate of Patna calling upon him to furnish security under the following circumstances: The petitioner is the keeper of a press at Patna and publisher of a newspaper called "The Searchlight." On 7 January 1932, the Local Government acting under the Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931 issued two notices upon the petitioner, one under Section 3(3) and another under Section 7(3) of the Act calling upon him in each case to furnish security of Rs. 1,500 before 18 January 1932. Section 3(3) authorises the Local Government to require such security from the keeper of a press and Section 7(3) gives them similar powers on the publisher of a newspaper.

(2.) The reason for the issue of these notices was that in the opinion of the Local Government a certain article published in the paper, "The Searchlight," came within the purview of Secs.4(d) and 4(e) of the Act as amended by Section 3 of the Emergency Powers Ordinance of 1932 which was in force then. The petitioner seems to. have deposited one security as the keeper of the press, but did not deposit any security as the publisher of the newspaper and stopped its publication. The effect of this failure was that under Section 12(3) of the Act the declaration made by him under Section 5, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, stood annulled and publication of the newspaper afterwards was liable to the penalties prescribed in the Act of 1897.

(3.) Now the orders of the Local Government were liable to be set aside by this Court on the ground that the article in question did not come within Section 4(1) (d), and (e) of the Act had an application) been filed within two months of the order. No such application however was made to us within the time prescribed nor does the petitioner ask us to revise that order, and taking into consideration the plain words of Section 30 of the Act we have now no jurisdiction to interfere with that order. It is not necessary to discuss the order of the Local Government. The order is not sought to be revised by us now, nor under the law is the petitioner entitled to ask us to do so after the expiry of two months from the date of the passing of that order.