1919 (3) TMI 2 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency and suitability of the procedure to review the magistrate's order.
2. Legality and warrant of the magistrate's order.
3. Judicial or administrative nature of the magistrate's act.
4. Application of certiorari and revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Interpretation and application of Section 4, Sub-section (1) of the Indian Press Act, 1910.
6. Validity of the forfeiture order under Section 4 of the Indian Press Act, 1910.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency and Suitability of the Procedure to Review the Magistrate's Order:
The judgment first considers whether the procedure adopted to review the magistrate's order was competent and suitable. The appellant questioned the order requiring her to deposit Rs. 2,000 as security, which was initially dispensed with. The court found that the magistrate has the power under the proviso of Section 3, Sub-section 1 of the Indian Press Act, 1910, to cancel or vary an order of dispensation. This power includes the ability to require security at a later stage if initially dispensed with, as per the plain meaning of the legislative words.

2. Legality and Warrant of the Magistrate's Order:
The court examined whether the magistrate's order was illegal or unwarranted. It was argued that the order was judicial and invalid as the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard. The court, however, determined that the magistrate's act was administrative, not judicial. The withdrawal of the privilege of dispensation did not necessitate a hearing, and the magistrate's action was within his administrative discretion.

3. Judicial or Administrative Nature of the Magistrate's Act:
The court concluded that the magistrate's act of cancelling the dispensation was administrative. The duties of magistrates, especially District Magistrates and Chief Presidency Magistrates, often include both judicial and administrative functions. The action of the magistrate under Sub-section 1 of Section 3 was analogous to the administrative actions of the Local Government under Sub-section 2. The court emphasized that the normal course is to require a deposit, and the magistrate's actions in varying this requirement are administrative.

4. Application of Certiorari and Revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court addressed whether the High Court could issue a writ of certiorari to review the magistrate's order. It was argued that the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay possess the power to issue this writ. However, the court noted that Section 22 of the Indian Press Act, 1910, restricts the questioning of any proceedings under the Act, except by the High Court in specific applications. The court held that the provisions of Section 22 preclude the issuance of certiorari for such administrative acts, reinforcing that the magistrate's order was not judicial and thus not subject to revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Interpretation and Application of Section 4, Sub-section (1) of the Indian Press Act, 1910:
The court analyzed whether the articles published in the appellant's newspaper contained words, signs, or visible representations likely to incite hatred or contempt towards the Government or any class of His Majesty's subjects, as per Section 4, Sub-section (1). The court referenced previous cases under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code to interpret the balancing of public considerations. The court found that the articles in question tended to excite hatred or contempt, thus falling within the scope of the section.

6. Validity of the Forfeiture Order under Section 4 of the Indian Press Act, 1910:
The court upheld the forfeiture order issued by the Local Government. The articles published in the appellant's newspaper were deemed to incite hatred or contempt towards the Government and certain classes of people. The court emphasized that the judgment of the High Court was based on a careful application of legal principles to the facts, and the Judicial Committee would not interfere with these conclusions. The court also noted that the High Court's judges, with their closer knowledge of the local context, were better positioned to assess the impact of the articles.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the magistrate's administrative discretion to cancel the dispensation order and the validity of the forfeiture order under the Indian Press Act, 1910. The court emphasized the administrative nature of the magistrate's actions and the legislative intent to limit judicial review of such administrative decisions.