Debabrata Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This is a petition for revision of an order dated 20-1-1955, made by a Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta convicting the petitioner under Section 5, West Bengal Undesirable Advertisements (Control) Act, 1948, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.
(2.) The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner is the printer and publisher of a monthly journal known as "The Modern Review" which in it its issue of June 1954 printed and published an advertisement under the heading "Outstanding Products of Hering and Kent". It was a full-column advertisement in which several products of Hering and Kent were advertised. One item related to a medicine called "Novum" which was advertised in these words, "The most potent and effective" "period regulator" for females, indicated in the treatment of Amenorrhoea (Periodic Disorders). Restores the female periodic cycle surely, quickly, safely. NOVUM SIMPLEX, Rs. 12-8, NOVUM PORTE. Rs. 50/-; NOVUM SUPER CONCENTRATED indicated only for menopausal trouble & oestrogenic hormone deficiency Rs. 21 CIVITA: MUST BE TAKEN tonic with NOVUM to prevent side reactions and hasten results. Rs. 19 per packet of 100; Rs. 4-12 per packet of 25. Also available".
(3.) The excerpt which I have set out above is from a list of several other medicaments which were advertised in that issue of the Journal. The prosecution alleged that the advertisement was printed without the previous sanction of the Government of West Bengal in the Department or Public Health who are the appointed authority in that behalf under Section G(c) of the Act. Evidence was adduced to prove that the petitioner was the printer and oublisher of the Modern Review, six copies of which were seized from the Prabashi Press where the journal was printed. A witness from the Department of Public Health was called to depose that permission had not been granted by the Department to the printing and publishing of the advertisement in question. In these circumstances, the petitioner was charged under Section 5, West Bengal Undesirable Advertisement (Control) Act 1948 for having contravened the provisions of Section 3 of that Act.;