9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Prosecution under superseded law 2. Application of General Clauses Act 3. Interpretation of Newspaper Control Order 4. Validity of convictions 5. Sentencing discretion Analysis: The appellant, an editor, printer, and publisher of a vernacular daily paper, was convicted of offences under the Newspaper Control Order, 1942, for exceeding the permissible page limit in two weekly publications. The main contention was whether prosecution could be initiated under the 1942 Order after its supersession by the 1944 Order, which did not contain similar provisions. The court emphasized that liability for an offence is determined by the law at the time of the act, not at the time of prosecution. While the General Clauses Act did not directly apply, its principles were considered relevant for interpretation. The absence of specific provisions for offences committed under the old Order in the new Order raised the question of continued liability. The court referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which allows for ongoing legal proceedings despite a repeal, to support the prosecution under the superseded law. The court highlighted the need for equitable principles in the absence of specific legislative guidance for interpreting the Newspaper Control Order. It deemed the printing of newspapers exceeding page limits as offences under the 1942 Order when committed, regardless of the subsequent supersession. Citing a precedent, the court emphasized applying principles akin to the General Clauses Act for interpreting legal provisions not explicitly covered by statutes. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions, emphasizing that the completion of the offences at the time of commission justified the prosecution under the superseded law. Regarding sentencing, the court found the imposed fines excessive considering the nature of the offence as technical and the delayed prosecution initiation. Acknowledging common errors among newspapers in page limit calculations, the court exercised leniency and reduced the fine to a nominal amount per count. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, considering the circumstances and intent behind the appellant's actions, ultimately aiming to achieve justice through a proportionate penalty.
|
