Strict interpretation of "printing" excludes cyclostyled publications and duplicator-based processes from the Act's scope.

The term "printing" in Act 25 of 1867 was construed in its strict, technical sense of typography and impressions taken from type. Applying a narrow reading appropriate to penal legislation, the court held that the same word must carry the same meaning throughout the Act, and the separate reference to lithographed copies showed that unmentioned duplicating processes were excluded. A cyclostyled or duplicated publication was therefore not a printed newspaper, and a Roneo duplicator could not be treated as a printing press for the Act's purposes. The statutory provisions did not cover the applicant's duplicator-based publication, so the conviction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "printing" in Act 25 of 1867 includes cyclostyling by a duplicator and whether such a duplicator can be treated as a printing press, so as to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The word "printing" in the statute was construed in its strict and technical sense, namely typography and taking impressions from type. The interpretive approach favoured the plain meaning of the statutory language, especially because penal statutes are to be read narrowly. The same word appearing repeatedly in the Act was required to bear the same sense throughout, and the presence of separate reference to lithographed copies indicated that processes not expressly mentioned were not intended to be included. A duplicated or cyclostyled publication was therefore outside the statutory meaning of a printed newspaper, and a Roneo duplicator could not be equated with a printing press for the purposes of the Act.

Conclusion: The statutory provisions did not cover the applicant's duplicator-based publication, and the conviction could not stand.

---