9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 regarding the use of a radio set without a license under section 20.
Analysis: The case involved a businessman from Patna who was prosecuted for using a radio set without a license under sections 3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, and section 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Judicial Magistrate convicted him under these sections, leading to an appeal by the State of Bihar against the High Court's order of acquittal under section 20 of the Act. The High Court had set aside the conviction under section 20, citing that using a wireless receiving set without a license may not constitute an offense under the said section due to the provisions of section 4 of the Act. The State challenged this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court first examined the definition of "telegraph" under the Act, which includes appliances for making, transmitting, or receiving telegraphic communications by means of electricity, galvanism, or magnetism. The Court referred to a previous case to establish that a radio receiving set falls under the definition of a telegraph as it receives communications by means of electricity. Therefore, a radio set receiving communications should also be considered a telegraph under the Act. The Court then analyzed section 4 of the Act, which grants the Central Government the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining, and working telegraphs. The provision allows for the granting of licenses for these purposes. The Court emphasized that the use of the conjunction "or" in the provision indicates that a license is required for establishing, maintaining, or working a telegraph. Therefore, using a radio set without a license could constitute an offense under section 20 of the Act. The Court rejected the argument that keeping or using a radio set does not fall under the terms "maintaining" or "working" a telegraph. It held that a person in possession of a radio set for use can be said to maintain and work it as per the definitions provided in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The Court also addressed a previous judgment from the Madras High Court, emphasizing that the use of a wireless set without a license can indeed be an offense under section 20 of the Act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court convicted the respondent under section 20 of the Act, in addition to the sentences imposed under sections 3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. The Court modified the High Court's order accordingly, stating that no separate sentence was necessary in this case.
|
