TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the printed leaflet was a "paper" within the meaning of the Act and was required to comply with the particulars prescribed by Section 3. (ii) Whether the omission to print the printer's name and place of printing, and the insufficiency of the publication particulars, rendered the respondents liable under Section 12, and whether liability was confined to the printer alone.
Issue (i): Whether the printed leaflet was a "paper" within the meaning of the Act and was required to comply with the particulars prescribed by Section 3.
Analysis: The expression "paper" was given an expanded statutory meaning by the amendment, and it was read together with the general definition of "document" in the General Clauses Act. A printed leaflet capable of conveying decipherable information in lasting form was treated as a document and therefore as a paper within Section 3. The earlier narrow view that the term was confined to newspapers or to matter of literary or historical value was rejected.
Conclusion: The leaflet was a "paper" within the Act and had to comply with Section 3.
Issue (ii): Whether the omission to print the printer's name and place of printing, and the insufficiency of the publication particulars, rendered the respondents liable under Section 12, and whether liability was confined to the printer alone.
Analysis: Section 3 was construed as requiring the paper itself to disclose ex facie the responsible printer, place of printing, publisher, and place of publication. Mere appearance of names of persons associated with the leaflet, without clear indication that they were the printer and publisher, was held insufficient. The obligation was not confined to the printer; the publisher was also required to ensure compliance with Section 3 and to refrain from publishing a non-complying paper. On the evidence, only the first respondent had ordered the printing and could be treated as the publisher, while the other two respondents were only distributors and not publishers for the purpose of liability.
Conclusion: The first respondent was liable under Section 12 and rightly convicted, while the other two respondents were not liable and their acquittal was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only against the first respondent, resulting in his conviction and sentence, and failed as regards the remaining respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: A printed paper must itself clearly disclose, on its face, the statutory particulars of printer, place of printing, publisher, and place of publication, and a person who arranges publication is liable if he publishes a paper that does not conform to Section 3.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
