<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1958 (5) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272637</link>
    <description>The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 requires every book or paper printed in India to bear the printer&#039;s name and place of printing. The court treated a four-page unstitched leaflet containing systematic allegations against named persons as a pamphlet, and therefore a &quot;book&quot; within the Act, because the statutory definition is broad and defamatory content does not prevent classification as a pamphlet or treatise. The concurrent finding that the leaflet had been printed at the applicant&#039;s press was not reopened in revision. The conviction and sentence for breach of the printing-particulars requirement were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2018 12:35:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (5) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272637</link>
      <description>The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 requires every book or paper printed in India to bear the printer&#039;s name and place of printing. The court treated a four-page unstitched leaflet containing systematic allegations against named persons as a pamphlet, and therefore a &quot;book&quot; within the Act, because the statutory definition is broad and defamatory content does not prevent classification as a pamphlet or treatise. The concurrent finding that the leaflet had been printed at the applicant&#039;s press was not reopened in revision. The conviction and sentence for breach of the printing-particulars requirement were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>