Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a revision application filed by Kishan Narayan, owner of a printing press in Jodhpur, challenging his conviction under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, for breaching Section 3 of the Act. The conviction arose from the printing of a leaflet, which the courts below held was printed at the applicant's press. The legal dispute centers on whether the leaflet qualifies as a "book" under the Act as it stood in 1952.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the leaflet printed by the applicant's press is a "book" within the meaning of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, as it stood in 1952.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The applicant contended that the leaflet in question does not fall within the definition of "book" under the Act.
  • The applicant relied on the precedent of State v. Udit Narain, AIR 1955 All 524, which held that a notice announcing a public meeting was neither a book nor a paper under the Act.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
State v. Udit Narain, AIR 1955 All 524 Defined that a notice announcing a public meeting was neither a book nor a paper within the meaning of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867; "paper" covers documents with historical, cultural, or literary value not classifiable as books or newspapers. Distinguished on facts: The leaflet in the present case was a defamatory pamphlet of four pages, systematically composed, unlike the mere notice in Udit Narain.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that questions of fact are not open for revision given concurrent findings by two lower courts that the leaflet was printed by the applicant's press. Section 3 of the Act requires that every book or paper printed in India must have the printer's name and place printed legibly.

The court examined the statutory definition of "book," which includes pamphlets and various printed materials. The Sessions Judge's classification of the leaflet as a pamphlet was upheld.

The court distinguished the precedent State v. Udit Narain on the basis that the prior case involved a mere notice, whereas the present leaflet was a four-page defamatory composition systematically presenting allegations against individuals.

Using definitions from Wharton's Law Lexicon and the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the court explained that a pamphlet can be either stitched or unbound but must be a literary treatise on a subject of current interest. The defamatory leaflet met this description as a literary composition systematically dealing with a subject, and its defamatory nature did not exclude it from being a treatise or literary work.

The court further clarified that "literary" relates broadly to literature, which does not require philosophical or moral content and may include immoral material.

Consequently, the leaflet was found to be a pamphlet and thus a book within the meaning of the Act, justifying the applicant's conviction and imposition of a fine.

Holding and Implications

The court rejected the revision application, affirming the conviction of Kishan Narayan under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, for breaching Section 3 of the Act.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the applicant's conviction and the fine of Rs. 50/-. The opinion does not establish any new legal precedent beyond the affirmation of the leaflet's classification as a book under the Act.

    Kishan Narayan v. The State

    1. This is a revision application by one Kishan Narayan, owner of a printing press in Jodhpur, against his conviction under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, for a breach of Section 3 of the Act.

    2. The only question for determination in this case is whether a leaflet, which has been held by both the courts below to have been printed in the press of the applicant, is a book within the meaning of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, as it stood in 1952.

    Questions of fact cannot be gone into in revision in the face of concurrent finding of facts by the two courts below. Section 3 lays down that every book or paper printed within India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing. The contention of the applicant before the court below was that the leaflet in question does not fall within the definition of 'book' contained in the Act.

    'Book' is defined as including every volume, part or division of a volume, and pamphlet in any language, and every sheet of music, map, chart, or plan separately printed. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the leaflet in question was a pamphlet. In my opinion, his decision is correct.

    3. On behalf of the applicant State v. Udit Narain, AIR 1955 All 524 (A), was cited. In that case it was held that a notice announcing holding of a public meeting to oppose the transfer of a Deputy Commissioner was neither a book, nor a paper within the meaning of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.

    It was laid down that the word 'paper' was intended to cover all those papers which could not be defined as 'books', or 'newspapers'; but which had historical, cultural or literary value.

    4. That case is clearly distinguishable because there the document was a notice only announcing the holding of a public meeting. The leaflet in question in the case before me is a defamatory leaflet of 4 pages which is not stitched, it, contains a large number of allegations against two individuals. It is headed "This Allahbux --Mathur and Company presents its naked picture before the public etc."

    In Wharton's Law Lexicon "pamphlet" is defined as a small book, usually printed in the octavo form, and stitched. In the Concise Oxford dictionary "pamphlet" is defined as a small unbound treatise specially on subject of current interest. "Treatise" is defined as a literary composition dealing more or less systematically with a definite subject.

    The leaflet in question is undoubtedly a composition defaming the two persons named in the heading systematically. I am unable to agree that merely because the subject of composition is defamatory it will be taken out of the definition of "treatise". "Literary" merely means occupied with literature.

    A literate person is one who has some acquaintance with literature. A person who is able to read and write has some acquaintance with literature. Literature need not always be philosophical or moral. It can equally be immoral.

    5. I am accordingly satisfied that the leaflet in question is a pamphlet and is therefore a book within the meaning of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The conviction of the applicant is therefore proper. The sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- imposed on him is not excessive.

    6. I accordingly reject the application.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Kishan Narayan v. The State
    (May 23, 1958)