1940 (5) TMI 26 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of "book" under Section 1 of Act 25 of 1867.
2. Determination of whether the documents in question qualify as pamphlets.
3. Analysis of the penalty prescribed under Section 16 of Act 25 of 1867.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a reference under Section 438, Criminal P.C., where the Sessions Judge recommended setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 16, Press and Registration of Books Act. The accused, a printer, failed to deliver copies of two pamphlets to the office as required by the Act. The trying Magistrate convicted the accused, leading to revision applications and the subsequent reference to the High Court.

2. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of the term "book" as defined in Act 25 of 1867. The Sessions Judge opined that the documents in question did not meet the definition of a book, as one document consisted of one sheet with two printed pages, and the other had one folded sheet with four pages. The judge referred to dictionary definitions of "pamphlet," emphasizing that a single-sheet document does not qualify as a pamphlet, and thus, cannot be considered a book under the Act. The defense argued that the definition of "book" may include documents beyond those explicitly mentioned, but the judge rejected this argument.

3. Another critical aspect of the judgment pertains to the penalty prescribed under Section 16 of the Act. The section specifies that for failing to deliver copies of a book, the printer shall forfeit a sum determined by the Magistrate, without mandating conviction and sentence. This contrasts with other sections that require punishment upon conviction. The High Court accepted the reference, setting aside the convictions and sentences imposed on the accused, with a directive for refunding any fines paid.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuanced interpretation of legal definitions, particularly concerning what constitutes a "book" and a "pamphlet" under the relevant statute. It also highlights the distinction in penalty provisions under different sections of the Act, ultimately leading to the quashing of the convictions against the accused printer.