- (1.) UDIT Narain, the opposite party in this case, was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Sadar, District Pratapgarh, under Section 12, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo simpla imprisonment for six months.
(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are as follows : One Sri Sarkar was the Deputy commissioner of Pratapgarh. He was transferred from the district. Some residents of Pratapgarh did not like this transfer. A notice was printed on 2-4-1953, in which it was announced that a meeting of the residents of Pratapgarh would be held to oppose this order of transfer. The names of the Press as well as tlie Printer were not printed on the notice. The place where the notice was printed was also not printed in the notice. The matter was investigated by a C. I. D. Inspector, who took the permission of the District Magistrate for doing so. In the course of his investigations, he found that this notice was printed at the Avadh Press and it was printed by the opposite party, who was the Assistant Manager of that Press. The opposite party was placed before a Magistrate for recording his statement and he admitted that it was a mistake that the particulars mentioned above were not printed in the notice. He also prayed that he should be pardoned as it was a sheer mistake and he had no intention of defying any law. The magistrate, however, as mentioned above, convicted him.
(3.) UDIT Narain appealed against this order of conviction and the Civil and Sessions Judge of pratapgarh allowed his appeal on the ground that the notice printed by the opposite party cannot be held to be a 'paper' within the meaning of Section 3, Press and Registration of Books Act 1867. He relied on several authorities, which he quoted in his decision. It is against this order of acquittal that the State has come up in appeal.;