Queen-Empress vs Hari Shenoy and Another

Collins, C.J.—The petitioners were convicted under Sections 3 and 15 of Act XXV of 1867, the ""Printing Presses and Newspapers Act.

They were charged with printing and publishing a newspaper without printing the name of the printer and publisher of such newspaper.

The facts are as follows:--In April 1892 Joseph Nunes, the registered printer and publisher of the paper in question ""The Kerala Nandini,"" who

had made the prescribed declaration u/s 5 of the Act, had been convicted of defamation and was sentenced to imprisonment. The newspaper is

owned by persons who call themselves ""The Malabar Economic Society,"" and they have a printing press which they call the Goshree Vilasam

Press, and the petitioners are the Manager of the Society and the Superintendent of the Press respectively, and are admitted to have published and

printed the newspapers. The only question for the Court to decide is--have the petitioners complied with the provisions of Section 3? That Section

is as follows:--""Every book or paper printed within British India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing, and

(if the book or paper be published) of the publisher, and the place of publication."" Section 5 enacts that no printed periodical work, containing

public news or comments on public news, shall be published in British India, unless the printer and the publisher of every such periodical shall make

a declaration that they are the printer and publisher of such periodical work.

Section 12 provides a penalty for printing or publishing any paper otherwise than in conformity with the rule contained in Section 3. Section 15

does not apply to this case. The petitioners during the time Nunes, the registered printer and publisher, was in prison, published the newspaper

with the following words: ""Printed and published at Cochin for the Malabar Economic Company at the said Company''s Goshree Vilasam Press.

I do not think the provisions of Section 3 have been sufficiently complied with. It is essential that the name of the printer and in this case the

publisher be printed on the paper--this appears clear by the form of declaration given in Section 5. In the case before me, the only information

given is that it was printed and published at a place, for a company, at such company''s press.

It appears to me that Section 3 is intended to inform the public who are the responsible printers and publishers of newspapers, and if the plain

words of the Section are to be departed from, the printers and publishers of newspapers might, under an assumed name or by using the name of an

unregistered company, effectually prevent their identity from being established, and that was the evil the Section is intended to prevent.

I would confirm the conviction u/s 3, and, as the fine is a nominal one, the sentence.

Shephard, J.

The petitioners were charged with an offence under the Printing Presses and Newspapers Act The charge refers to Sections 3 and 15. In

substance the charge is that they have printed and published a newspaper without printing legibly on it the name of the printer and publisher. The

reference to Section 15 is erroneous, because that Section deals with ""any such periodical work as is hereinbefore described"" and the description

of such work and the rules with regard thereto are to be found in Section 5 and not in Section 3. The petitioners however do not appear to have

been prejudiced by the mistake. Section 3 clearly covers the case of a newspaper and an omission to print legibly on it the name of the printer is,

by Section 12, made a penal offence.

Are the defendants guilty of printing or publishing a paper ""otherwise than in conformity with the rule contained in Section 3?"" Admittedly they

have printed and published a paper on which there are printed the following words:--""Printed and published at Cochin for the Malabar Economic

Company at the Company''s Goshree Vilasam Press."" It is said that there is no compliance with the rule in Section 3, because the name of the

printer is not given. It is said that the actual name of the printer should be given and that it should be stated that the paper was printed by him. If the

actual name is essential, clearly the conviction is right, but I do not think this can be maintained and indeed the point was given up in argument. So

long as a name or style which sufficiently designates the printer is given, it does not matter that it is not the actual name of the man. It is sufficient

that it is the name under which he chooses to do business and is generally known.

Then is it essential that the paper should announce in terms that it is printed by the person named? What is required by the Section is that the

name of the printer should be printed on it legibly. If without more, it had given the name of the printer and publisher and the place of publication,

clearly that would have been sufficient if only the names appeared on the page in such a manner as to convey the required information. Here, the

announcement is that the printing is done for a certain company at their own press. This is not the clearest way of expressing what is required, and

it is suggested that the printing might, in fact, be done by a third person. But this is putting a very strict construction on the words. Unless we can

say that the words do not convey to an ordinary reader the information required by the Act, the conviction cannot be supported. There is no

reason to doubt that the accused intended to convey that information, and I cannot say their intention has not been carried into effect in a manner

sufficient to satisfy the statute. I would set aside the conviction and direct the fine, if paid, to be refunded.

This case having been laid before Muttusami Ayyar, J., with reference to the provisions of Sections 429* and 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, his Lordship, upon perusing the petition and the records of the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. J.G. Smith, counsel for the

petitioners, and of the Acting Public Prosecutor in support of the conviction, delivered the following Judgment:

Muttusami Ayyar, J.

This case comes on before me under Sections 429 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question on which the learned Judges,

who first heard the case, differed is, whether the accused complied with the provisions of Section 3 of Act XXV of 1867. That Section provides

that ""Every book or paper printed within British India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing and (if the

book or paper be published) of tie publisher, and the place of publication."" The words with which the accused published the newspaper called

Kerala Nandini are ""Printed and published at Cochin for the Malabar Economic Company at the said Company''s Goshree Vilasam Press."" They

only mention the place of publication and of the press in which the paper was printed and state that it was on account or for the benefit of an

unregistered association called Economic Society. But they do not name the printer as required by the Act and to this extent there is a departure

from its provisions. The intention was to inform the public who the responsible printer was and to convey that information on the face of the paper,

and I cannot say that words which contain no such information amount to a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 3. It is urged that

the object was to provide to the public facilities towards the discovery of the responsible printer, and that any person might easily discover who the

printer was on reference to the Economic Society. The intention was not simply to provide some facility or other, but to provide a specific facility

on the face of the paper. It is possible that a person may not be able without considerable inconvenience to discover who the members of the

Economic Society are, and that some member may refuse to give or evade giving information regarding the responsible printer.

We are not at liberty, I think, to speculate as to the object of the Legislature and to substitute a mode of discovering the responsible printer for

that prescribed by the Legislature as most conducive to public convenience and protection.

I agree, therefore, with the learned Chief Justice that we must decline to interfere with the conviction and the sentence. Ordered accordingly.