1955 (4) TMI 45 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds acquittal in 'paper' interpretation case under Press Act, emphasizing need for clear laws

The State Versus Udit Narain

The State Versus Udit Narain - AIR 1955 All 524 Issues:Interpretation of the term 'paper' under Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.Analysis:1. The case involved the conviction of the opposite party under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 for printing a notice without certain required details. The Magistrate convicted the opposite party, but the Sessions Judge acquitted him on the grounds that the notice did not fall under the definition of 'paper' as per Section 3 of the Act.2. The State appealed against the acquittal, arguing that the term 'paper' in Section 3 should be interpreted broadly to include any piece of paper that has been printed. The State relied on a previous decision where a hand-bill was considered 'paper,' but the Court noted that the matter was not extensively argued in that case.3. The Court observed that the term 'paper' was not defined in the Act and should be interpreted in its ordinary and natural meaning. However, giving the term its natural meaning would lead to absurd results, as every printed invitation or notice would then fall under the Act's ambit.4. The Court delved into the legislative intent behind the Act, emphasizing that the primary concern was the preservation of copies of books and printed material with literary, historical, or cultural value. The Court noted that the term 'paper' was likely used to cover such printed matter that did not fit the definition of a book but held value.5. Various judicial interpretations of the term 'paper' were discussed, with different High Courts offering differing views. The Lahore High Court observed a lacuna in the Act due to the lack of a clear definition for 'paper printed.' The Court highlighted the necessity for clarity in penal provisions to avoid ambiguity and presumption.6. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the term 'paper' in the Act was vague and lacked clarity. As a penal provision, it needed to be clear and unambiguous, which was not the case with the term 'paper.' Therefore, the Court upheld the Sessions Judge's acquittal of the opposite party, stating that the conviction was not maintainable under the current interpretation of the law.7. The appeal was dismissed, and the opposite party was not required to surrender, with their bail bonds being canceled. The judgment highlighted the importance of clear and unambiguous legal provisions in ensuring justice and avoiding arbitrary convictions.