Ganesh Lal vs Emperor

In this case we are asked to interfere u/s 107 of the Government of India Act of 1915. The facts briefly are that a press is owned by the petitioner and alleged by the petitioner to have been working since 1889. From 1889 to 1914 it appears to have worked without any such declaration as was required by Section 4 of Act XXV of 1867, but on a notice being issued under Act I of 1910, he filed the necessary declaration on the 24th June 1914. At the time of filing that declaration no security was deposited. The proceedings in regard to this matter are not before us, and we are, therefore, not in a position to say. whether on not reasons were then recorded for exempting the petitioner from depositing the security. The present proceedings were taken on account of the publication of two pamphlets, which in the opinion of the district authorities contained objectionable phrases likely to excite disaffection. On the 3rd April 1916 the petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate to show cause why he should not be called upon to give a security u/s 3 of Act I of 1910. The terms of the notice served upon him are as follows:

issue notice to proprietor of the Behar Angel Press to deposit Rs. 2,000 as security u/s 3 of the Indian Press Act, 1910, within 15 days as he allowed such objectionable pamphlets to be printed in his press as Jivan Jagya and Swavalamban. If he fails to comply with the order he will be prosecuted u/s 23 of the Act.

It is pointed out to us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if this is meant to be an order passed u/s 3, Clause 2, only the Local Government has power to make such an order. The matter is very much one of form. We have not before us, as I have said," the previous proceedings u/s 3, and it would undoubtedly have been better if the learned Magistrate had framed his notice so that it was clear that he was acting u/s 3, Clause 1, and proposing to cancel or vary the order made under the first part of that clause, and in cancelling or varying that order was calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to make a substantial deposit. Inasmuch as great subsequent difficulty may arise in the matter of prosecutions u/s 23 or proceedings in connection with the forfeiture of the deposit, we think it best to set aside the order made on the 17th April 1916 and to direct that the Magistrate start afresh with a simple order upon the petitioner to show cause why the order exempting him from security, made at the time of the filing of his declaration in June 1914, should not be cancelled and that order varied in such manner as may seem good to the District Magistrate.