Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Pandurang Balkrishna Pathak - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 408 of 1913
Judge
Reported in(1914)16BOMLR87
AppellantEmperor
RespondentPandurang Balkrishna Pathak
Excerpt:
.....order and called upon the accused to furnish security in respect of: the newspaper. the accused thereupon did not any more print the newspaper and did not furnish the security demanded. he, however, continued to use the press for other work. he was, for such user convicted under section 23, clause 1 of the press act, 1910. the accused having applied in revision:-;that the conviction could not be upheld for clause 1 of section 23 only covered the disobedience of an order under section 3 or section 5 of the press act, 1910 and that the order disobeyed was not such an order. - .....which we need not concern ourselves, came to the conclusion that he would cancel that order and require security. he did this by an order dated the 6th of august 1912 but in requiring security he did not require it for the purpose contemplated by section 3, clause r that is to say, he did not require it in respect of the press but in respect of the newspaper which was published at the press and he directed accordingly. after that time the newspaper was not published, but the press was used. for this use of the press the applicant was prosecuted for an offence under clause 1 of section 23 of act i of 1910. that clause only covers the disobedience of an order under section 3 or section 5. the order which was disobeyed, if it be assumed that there was disobedience, was not an order.....
Judgment:

1. In this case we only-deal with the particular point which we decide.

2. The applicant had since the coming into force of Act I of 1910 made declarations under Sections 4 and 5 of Act XXV of 1867. The Magistrate had made an order under the proviso to Clause 1 of Section 3 of Act I of 1910 dispensing with the deposit of any security. Subsequently the Magistrate, for reasons with which we need not concern ourselves, came to the conclusion that he would cancel that order and require security. He did this by an order dated the 6th of August 1912 but in requiring security he did not require it for the purpose contemplated by Section 3, Clause r that is to say, he did not require it in respect of the press but in respect of the newspaper which was published at the press and he directed accordingly. After that time the newspaper was not published, but the press was used. For this use of the press the applicant was prosecuted for an offence under Clause 1 of Section 23 of Act I of 1910. That clause only covers the disobedience of an order under Section 3 or Section 5. The order which was disobeyed, if it be assumed that there was disobedience, was not an order covered by either Section 3 or by Section 5. Therefore the conviction cannot stand. As a matter of fact there is no substance in this case. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to enquire whether it would be possible to show that there might be a justifiable conviction under some other section of the Act.

3. For these reasons we set aside the conviction and sentence and direct the fine, if paid, be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //