https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272639 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. en-us Sat, 28 Feb 1931 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 May 2018 13:05:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272639 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 28 Feb 1931 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272639