P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) SUMESHAR son of Ram Jag and Kateshar son of Sumeshar R/o Moh. Mangal Bazar, PS Kotwali, distt. Basti were challenged for an offence Under Section 3/12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1367 (hereinafter called the Act) for having failed to print the name of the printer and the place of its printing on a paper Ex. 2. By this omission, they contravened the provisions of Section 3 punishable Under Section 12 of the Act. They have been acquitted by the SDM, Basti vide the judgment and order dt. 24 -7 -1970. The State of U.P. has come up in appeal against the order of acquittal.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 21 -9 -1968 at about 4.40 p.m. Sri G.K. Saxena, SO Kotwali carried out a search of the Sumeshar Press in the presence of the opposite parties who were owners thereof. During the course of this search, they took a block Ex. 1, a paper Ex. 2 (which is now the disputed document) and a Badami copy Ex. 3. This paper Ex. 2 was printed at the Sumeshar Press but did not contain the name of the printer and the place of its printing. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sri G.K. Saxena, S.O. Kotwali (PW 1) who conducted the search of the press of the opposite parties. The recovery of Ex. 1, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 referred to above was also witnessed by two witnesses from the public namely Vidya Prasad (PW 2) and Nageshwar (PW 3). A recovery memo Ex. Ka 1 was written out by SI Jothan Singh (PW 4) at the press at the dictation of the Station Officer. This was signed by Sri G.K. Saxena, Sri Vidya Prasad and Sri Nageshwar.
(3.) IN defence Sumeshar Respondent No. 1 admitted that he was the owner of the Sumeshar Press. His plea was that the paper in question Ex Ka 2 is merely a receipt and that the name of the press is not necessary to be printed thereon as it is not a paper nor a book as contemplated under the Act. The Respondent No. 2 Kateshar denied that he was the owner of the press. He admitted that he was the son of the Respondent No. 1 but pleaded that he had not printed the paper. In defence Shyam Lal (DW 1) was produced. He stated that he had sent the matter Ex. Kha 1 to the press in question for printing. He had seen its proof, Ex. Kha 2 and had approved it. He has also stated that the paper in question is not a paper within the definition of the Act and is merely a receipt.;