1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 3 of Printing-presses and Books Act XXV of 1867, inasmuch as he being the keeper of a press called ' Mumbai Vaibhav Steam Press' printed a portion of the pamphlet in question called 'Kavyaratnavali' in Bombay and did not com- ply with Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 says :-' 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) (the name) of the publisher and the place of publication. ' And it appears that the accused is the man who made the declaration in the form laid down under Section 4, viz.:-' I, A. B., declare that I have a press for printing at...'
2. We have had a very elaborate argument addressed to us upon this point by Mr. Gharpure. But it seems to us that when regard is had to the definition of the word ' book ' in Section 1 of the Act, the whole of the argument falls to the ground. A ' book, ' it says, ' includes every volume, part or division of a volume, and pamphlet, in any language, etc., etc.' Here there is no question but that the accused had printed a part of this pamphlet in Bombay, the rest was printed at Jalgaon and the name of the printer of that latter press appears on the book. But the accused's name does not appear on the book. Therefore, we think, he is guilty of not having complied with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and we confirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss the application.