9911796707
TMI Blog1945 (8) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay a fine of ₹ 200 on each count. 2. There are no disputes about the facts of this case; but what was contended was that no prosecution can lie under the Newspaper Control Order of 1942, as it was superseded by the Newspaper Control Order of 1944, which came into force on 17th July, 1944, which contained no provisions similar to Clauses (1) of the earlier Order, and that on the date on which he was prosecuted there was no law in the Statute book under which he had committed any offence in respect of the acts complained of. In short, the argument was that even though it was an offence under the Order as it stood on the date on which the publications were made, still by reason of the fact that the law which he is said to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o apply principles of equity and good conscience analogous to the principles of the General Clauses Act. The printing and publishing of newspapers during the weeks ending 25th June, 1944 and 2nd July, 1944, containing 28 and 32 pages respectively became an offence at the end of each of those two weeks when the newspapers were published with the number of pages mentioned above. There can be no doubt that the appellant was guilty of having committed offences under the Newspaper Control Order of 1942 on those dates. 5. The prosecution in this case was laid only on 28th October, 1944. By that time the Newspaper Control Order of 1942 had been superseded and a new Order had been promulgated under which the act of the appellant would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, ana any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation has not been passed. As already stated above, the provisions of the General Clauses Act though they do not apply as such can be looked into as a rule of prudence, in dealing with a question of interpretation of the kind raised by the defence in the case. The Newspaper Control Order of 1944 is no doubt a superseding order. It does not contain any provision that there shall be no prosecution for offences already committed under the order which was superseded; nor has the superseding order made any provision in respect of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... think it is excessive. By printing some more pages than what he ought to, he has given more to his subscribers than what he had to, and he was the loser by that act. Also it was only under a mistaken impression that a week must be counted only as six days he seems to have published a few more pages than he ought to. The very fact that in the superseding enactment it is not thought necessary to put any limit on the number of pages to be printed gees to show that this is only a technical offence. This is not a case for imposing such a severe sentence. Further it is long after the offence was committed that this prosecution was started. This is not the only paper that committed this error. Other papers have also published similarly taking a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
