Courtney-Terrell, C.J.This is a petition by one Rameshwar Prasad Varma who is the Secretary of the Patna District Congress Committee for the revision of the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Patna dismissing his appeal from the decision of a Magistrate of the First Class convicting the petitioner under Sections 12. 13 and 15, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The established facts are that the petitioner had in his possession a cyclostyle which he used for the purpose of multiplying copies of a periodical newspaper entitled "Satyagrah Samachar." He was charged u/s 12 of the with printing or publishing a paper otherwise than in conformity with the rule in Section 3 which makes it necessary to give in the publication legibly printed the name of the printer and the place of the printing u/s 13 with keeping in his possession a press as defined in Section 4, that is to say, keeping in his possession a press for the printing of books or papers without having subscribed the prescribed declaration and u/s 15 with publishing a newspaper knowing that the rules had not been observed and he was sentenced to three months simple imprisonment.

2. It is argued on his behalf first that the operation of multiplying copies by means of a cyclostyle machine is not a printing operation and so is not covered by the. No definition of the word "printing" is contained in the but using, as we are invited to do, the common acceptation of the word it may be said certainly to include the multiplication of copies by pressure from an inked surface. A cyclostyle consists of a paper stencil under which the copy to receive the impression is placed and over which is passed with pressure an ink roller. The ink passes through the stencil at its open parts and the ink comes in contact with the paper under the stencil. This is certainly an operation of multiplying copies by means of pressure from an inked surface and in my opinion it is certainly printing.

3. But the following ingenious argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is said that the mere possession of a cyclostyle machine cannot be held to be possession of a press for the printing of books or papers within Section 4 of the. Now in interpreting Section 4 of the Act, the proper construction is in my opinion as follows: The words "for the printing of books or papers" are an adverbial phrase modifying the verb "keep" in the sentence "keep in his possession." They are not an adjectival phrase modifying the noun "press." They refer to the object of the possessor of the machine. It may well be that the object of the possessor of a cyclostyle machine is not for the purpose of multiplying copies for periodical publication. Now the preamble of the is in its material parts as follows:

Whereas it is expedient to provide for the regulation of printing presses and of periodicals containing news....

4. It is clear that this part of the to which this preamble relates is concerned only with the regulation of papers containing news which are intended to be circulated and in my opinion the word "papers" in Sections 3 and 4 of theare clearly papers of this description and are practically, if not exactly synonymous with the word "newspaper" as defined in Section 1 of theitself. Therefore the mere possession of a cyclostyle machine which is not intended for the printing of books or for the printing of papers in the sense in which I think that word is used in the is not an offence which is punishable u/s 13.

5. It was argued that if the cyclostyle machine is not a printing press within Section 4 then the papers produced by its agency cannot be said to be printed. As I have said the question as to whether the printing press is or is not within Section 4 is a question of the use to which the printing press is in fact put or intended to be put by the possessor.

6. The petitioner in this case has in my opinion rightly been convicted of printing a paper otherwise than in conformity with the rule contained in Section 3; he has rightly been convicted u/s 13 for keeping in his possession a press for the printing of books and papers as I have defined it and he has rightly been convicted of printing a newspaper without conforming to the rules as provided by Section 15 of the. We have been asked to consider the revision of the sentence but in the absence of an entirely satisfactory undertaking by the petitioner as to his future conduct this matter cannot be taken into consideration. The sentence is not excessive in the circumstances and must stand. I would dismiss this petition.

Adami, J.

7. I agree.