Posted On by &filed under Bombay High Court, High Court.

Bombay High Court
Emperor vs Pandurang Balkrishna Pathak on 9 January, 1914
Equivalent citations: (1914) 16 BOMLR 87
Bench: Heaton, Shah


1. In this case we only-deal with the particular point which we decide.

2. The applicant had since the coming into force of Act I of 1910 made declarations under Sections 4 and 5 of Act XXV of 1867. The Magistrate had made an order under the proviso to Clause 1 of Section 3 of Act I of 1910 dispensing with the deposit of any security. Subsequently the Magistrate, for reasons with which we need not concern ourselves, came to the conclusion that he would cancel that order and require security. He did this by an order dated the 6th of August 1912 but in requiring security he did not require it for the purpose contemplated by Section 3, Clause r that is to say, he did not require it in respect of the press but in respect of the newspaper which was published at the press and he directed accordingly. After that time the newspaper was not published, but the press was used. For this use of the press the applicant was prosecuted for an offence under Clause 1 of Section 23 of Act I of 1910. That clause only covers the disobedience of an order under Section 3 or Section 5. The order which was disobeyed, if it be assumed that there was disobedience, was not an order covered by either Section 3 or by Section 5. Therefore the conviction cannot stand. As a matter of fact there is no substance in this case. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to enquire whether it would be possible to show that there might be a justifiable conviction under some other section of the Act.

3. For these reasons we set aside the conviction and sentence and direct the fine, if paid, be refunded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.308 seconds.