ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. - Sumeshar son of Ram Jag and Kateshar son of Sumeshar R/o Moh. Mangal Bazar, PS Kotwali, distt. Basti were challenged for an offence u/s 3/12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1367 (hereinafter called the Act) for having failed to print the name of the printer and the place of its printing on a paper Ex. 2. By this omission, they contravened the provisions of Section 3 punishable u/s 12 of the Act. They have been acquitted by the SDM, Basti vide the judgment and order dt. 24-7-1970. The State of U.P. has come up in appeal against the order of acquittal. 2. The prosecution case is that on 21-9-1968 at about 4.40 p.m. Sri G.K. Saxena, SO Kotwali carried out a search of the Sumeshar Press in the presence of the opposite parties who were owners thereof. During the course of this search, they took a block Ex. 1, a paper Ex. 2 (which is now the disputed document) and a Badami copy Ex. 3. This paper Ex. 2 was printed at the Sumeshar Press but did not contain the name of the printer and the place of its printing. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sri G.K. Saxena, S.O. Kotwali (PW 1) who conducted the search of the press of the opposite parties. The recovery of Ex. 1, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 referred to above was also witnessed by two witnesses from the public namely Vidya Prasad (PW 2) and Nageshwar (PW 3). A recovery memo Ex. Ka 1 was written out by SI Jothan Singh (PW 4) at the press at the dictation of the Station Officer. This was signed by Sri G.K. Saxena, Sri Vidya Prasad and Sri Nageshwar. 4. In defence Sumeshar Respondent No. 1 admitted that he was the owner of the Sumeshar Press. His plea was that the paper in question Ex Ka 2 is merely a receipt and that the name of the press is not necessary to be printed thereon as it is not a paper nor a book as contemplated under the Act. The Respondent No. 2 Kateshar denied that he was the owner of the press. He admitted that he was the son of the Respondent No. 1 but pleaded that he had not printed the paper. In defence Shyam Lal (DW 1) was produced. The Respondent No. 2 Kateshar denied that he was the owner of the press. He admitted that he was the son of the Respondent No. 1 but pleaded that he had not printed the paper. In defence Shyam Lal (DW 1) was produced. He stated that he had sent the matter Ex. Kha 1 to the press in question for printing. He had seen its proof, Ex. Kha 2 and had approved it. He has also stated that the paper in question is not a paper within the definition of the Act and is merely a receipt. 5. The SDM Basti acquitted the Respondents relying upon a decision reported in The State Vs. Udit Narain, AIR 1955 All 524 . The view of the trial court was that according to the aforesaid decision, "paper is one which has a literary, historical or cultural value." He was of the opinion that Ex. 2 the disputed paper does not come within the purview of paper as defined in the Act and as such, no offence has been committed by the Respondents. He was further of the view that the paper in dispute is a receipt and hence no case is made out against the Respondents. On these findings he recorded an order of acquittal. 6. I have carefully scrutinized the evidence on the record. From a perusal thereof, there can be no doubt that Ex. 2 was printed at the Sumeshar Press owned by Respondent No. 1. Sumeshar has admitted that the press belonged to him. The oral evidence proves beyond doubt the recovery of the Block Ex. 1, paper (in dispute) Ex. 2 and the Badami copy Ex. 3 from Sumeshar Press. I find no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements of the prosecution witnesses on this count. 7. The question of fact however which has to be determined in this appeal is whether Ex. 2 was a receipt or a paper as defined in the Act. Ex. 2 runs as follows: Inqilab zindabad. Adyaksh Mao Zindabad DUNIYA KE MAZDOOR KISAN EK HO Sangrami janta sa kisan sangram samiti ka lal salam--Kisan khet mazdooron se kisan sangram samiti ka lal salam. Sangram samiti ko chalane ke liye ek din ka khana do. Sangrami janta ko gol-band karne ke liye ek din ka khana do. Dinank---Nam dene wale ka---Zila kisan sangram samiti. 8. A perusal of Ex. Sangram samiti ko chalane ke liye ek din ka khana do. Sangrami janta ko gol-band karne ke liye ek din ka khana do. Dinank---Nam dene wale ka---Zila kisan sangram samiti. 8. A perusal of Ex. 2 clearly indicates that it is an appeal to the workers of the world to unite. It starts with a salutation as "Mao zindabad" and conveys its greetings (lal salam). On behalf of the Kisan Sangram Samiti, it requests for assistance for running the Sangram Samiti. It is true that the last line of this writing is worded 'nam dene wale ka' but on a fair interpretation of the entire contents of the writing, there can be no doubt that it is an appeal to the workers of the world to unite under the red flag and to assi it in the organization of the District Kisan Sangram Samiti. I therefore, disagree wilih the finding of the trial court that this impugned document is a receipt and hence the provisions of the Act an not attracted. 9. The question of law for determination in this case is whether Ex. 2 is a paper within the definition of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. For this purpose, a brief history of the legislation pertaining to the regulation of printing press and newspapers in our country may be necessary. On 22-3-1867 the Press and Registration of Books Act (Act No. XXV of 1867) was passed by the Governor General in Council. Its preamble runs as follows: Whereas it is expedient to provide for the regulation of printing presses and of periodicals containing news, for the preservation of three copies of every book printed or lithographed in British India and for the registration of such books; it is hereby enacted as follows: ... ... ... 10. Its preamble clearly shows that the primary object of the legislature in passing this Act was to incorporate a measure which would help in the preservation of copies of books printed or lithographed. 11. A reference to the statement of objects and reasons of Act XXV of 1867 indicates as follows: It has for many years been the endeavour of the authorities to make a collection of book and other publications emanating from the various printing presses at work throughout the country. It was an instruction of the late Court of Directors of the East India Co. It was an instruction of the late Court of Directors of the East India Co. that copies of every important and interesting work published should be despatched to England to be deposited in the library of the India House. Yet the catalogue prepared in 1852 imperfect as it was, showed a list of some one thousand and five hundred books of more or less interest and importance, all published within the last ten or fifteen years and it is notorious that, in the province of Lower Bengal at least, there has been of late years very great activity in the literary world and every year shows no inconsiderable increase in the number of works, original or reprinted, published and in the number of printing presses established. The literature of a country is no doubt an index of the opinions and condition of the people and such an index it is essential to good government that the rulers of country should possess. In the interest, too, of history and of the scholars of Europe, it is undoubtedly wise to provide that a complete collection of the publications of the press of this country should be made as well in this country as in England. It cannot but be of benefit to authors and publishers that catalogues of their works and to a very limited extent copies of the works themselves, should be accessible to the public In certain well-known places. 12. In view of the extracts quoted above, it appears that the primary intention in passing Act XXV of 1867 was to preserve copies of every book or paper which has a literary, historical or cultural value. It was in this context that the Division Bench of this Court held in The State Vs. Udit Narain, AIR 1955 All 524 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. It was in this context that the Division Bench of this Court held in The State Vs. Udit Narain, AIR 1955 All 524 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. It is significant in this connection however to note that even though the Press and Registration of Books Act was amended a number of times subsequently by several Aots namely Act XI of 1916, Act XXXVIII of 1920, Act XIV of 1922, Act XI of 1923, Act XXXV of 1950, Act III of 1951, Act LVI of 1951, yet even upto the time of the decision of the Allahabad case, the word 'paper' had not been defined either in the original Ace or by the subsequent amendments referred to above. In the year 1955, however, the amending Act No. LV of 1955 was passed. A perusal of the objects and reasons of this amendment Act of 1955 indicates that: The Act was intended to apply to all papers printed (including posters, etc.) and as recommended by the Press Commission this intention has been clarified by removing the doubt which judicial decisions seem to have created. 13. In Section 1 of the Amendment Act 1955 the word 'paper' has been defined thus: 'Paper' means any document including a newspaper other than a book. It is on the basis of this definition that learned Counsel for the State has argued that Ex. 2 the writing in dispute is a paper within the meaning of the Act and failure of the Respondents to comply with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act entails them to penal consequences, u/s 12 of the Act. 14. The question now which has arisen for consideration is as to what is the meaning of a document. The word 'document' has been defined in Section 3(18) of the General Clauses Act X of 1897 thus: Document shall include any matter written, expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means which is intended to be used or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter. The same definition has been incorporated in Section 4(13) of the U.P. General Clauses Act. 15. The same definition has been incorporated in Section 4(13) of the U.P. General Clauses Act. 15. The question whether a leaflet printed at the Pearl Press, Sikandrabad, was a paper within the definition of Section 3 of the Act came up for consideration by Krishna Rao, J. in Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Amrath Rao and Others, AIR 1960 AP 176 . While discussing this question, Krishna Rao, J. relied upon the definition of the term 'document' in the General Clauses Act X of 1897 referred to above. His view was as follows: 'To record' means to set down in a some permanent form. Any decipherable information which is sit down in A lasting form would be a 'document' and if it is printed within British India, it is hit by Section 3 of the Act. Hence there can be no question that Ex. P 1 is a 'paper' which has to conform to the rule in Section 3 of the Act. It is no longer open to say that the word 'paper' in Section 3 is synonymous with 'newspaper' as was held in Rameshwar Prashad Verma Vs. Emperor, AIR 1931 Patna 351 followed in Emperor Vs. Dattatraya Malhar Bidkar, AIR 1937 Bom 28 and AIR 1943 1 (Lahore) ; or must contain matter which is of literary or historical or cultural value as was held in The State Vs. Udit Narain, AIR 1955 All 524 . 16. The above decision of Krishna Rao, J. in my opinion lays down the correct law on this subject and I am in respectful agreement with his view. 17. Apart from the definition of document as laid down in the General Clauses Act mentioned above, it is well established that the dictionary meaning can be a safe guide in the interpretation of a term of the 'statute'. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 666 describes document as: Something (as a writing) that serves to demonstrate or prove something. A writing (as a book, report or letter) conveying information; A material substance (as a coin or stone) having on it a representation of the thoughts of men by means of some conventional mark or symbol. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. I p. 546 describes document as: Something written, inscribed etc. which furnishes evidence or information upon any subject, as a manuscript, title-deed coin etc. In "Words and Phrases", Vol. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. I p. 546 describes document as: Something written, inscribed etc. which furnishes evidence or information upon any subject, as a manuscript, title-deed coin etc. In "Words and Phrases", Vol. 1 3, West Publishing Company, p. 118, the general definition of document is as follows: A 'document' is any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter. At p. 119 of the same volume it is further mentioned that: The word 'document' is defined in The Century Dictionary as, in the law of evidence, anything bearing a legible or significant inscription or legend; anything that may be read as communicating an idea; including, thus, a tombstone, seal, coin, sign-board etc. as well as paper writings. Lastly in Venkataramaiya's Law Lexicon, Vol. I, p 356, a document has been described as: An instrument on which is recorded, by means of letters, figures, or marks, matter which may be evidentially used. In this sense the term "document" applies to writings; to words printed, lithographed, or photographed; to seals, plates, or stones on which inscriptions are out or engraved; to photographs and pictures; to maps or plans. The inscription may be on stone or gems; or on wood, as well as on paper or parchment. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 568. 18. A consideration of all these definitions of 'document' enumerated above, leads to the inevitable conclusion that a writing which serves to demonstrate or convey information or communicates an idea is a document according to the natural and general meaning of the terra. In this new if the matter, I am of the opinion that Ex. 2 (the writing in dispute) is covered by the definition of paper as laid down in the Press and Registration of Books Act as amended by Act LV of 1955. 19. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has also argued that if such a wide meaning is given to the definition of the word 'paper', it may lead to unreasonable and absurd results. He argues that even a pre mote, invitation to a dinner party or printed visiting cards would in these circumstances come within the purview of paper' which is not the intention of that framers of the Ace. He argues that even a pre mote, invitation to a dinner party or printed visiting cards would in these circumstances come within the purview of paper' which is not the intention of that framers of the Ace. I am not inclined to agree with this submission. Section 3 of the Act as amended upto date runs as follows: Every book or japer printed within (India) shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing and (if the book or paper be published) the name of the publisher and the place of publication. Section 4 requires the keeper of a printing press to make a declaration to that effect before the SDM within whose local jurisdiction such press may be. It runs thus: No person shall, within (India) keep in hi-s possession any press for the printing of books or papers, who shall not have made and subscribed the following declaration before (the District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate) within whose local jurisdiction such press may be. 20. To my mini Sections 3 and 4 of the Act make it amply clear that the intention of the framers of the Amended Act as it stands today is to inform the public as to who are the persons responsible for printing and publishing of a book, newspaper, or paper so that they may not escape the legal consequences, if any, which the printing of such matter may give rise to. The paper must ex facie communicate the information to the public as to who is responsible for printing and publishing it. In interpreting a statute, it is the duty of the court to suppress the mischief and to advance the remedy. 21. Merely because a certain provision of the statute works hardship is no ground for importing a different meaning to words which are unambiguous and explicit. The argument of inconvenience and hardship to may mind, is a dangerous one and cannot be called to aid in the circumstances of the present case. 22. Section 21 of the Act empowers the State Govt. to exclude by notification in the official gazette any class of books or papers from the operation of the whole or any part or parts of the Act. 22. Section 21 of the Act empowers the State Govt. to exclude by notification in the official gazette any class of books or papers from the operation of the whole or any part or parts of the Act. The remedy of a citizen therefore who feels aggrieved by the so called hardship is to approach the State for redress of his grievances under the provisions of the Act, for the law courts are bound to interpret the Act as it is and not what it ought to be. 23. In view of my finding on the question of fact and the question of law, involved in this case, I am of the opinion that Sumeshar having failed to print the name of the press and the place of printing on Ex. 2 has dearly committed an offence u/s 3 of the Act which is punishable u/s 12 of the Act. Kateshar however is neither the owner nor the printer of the press. He has therefore, been rightly acquitted. The order of acquittal so far as it concerns him is maintained. 24. In the result, therefore, this appeal by the State of U.P. is partly allowed. The order of acquittal of the Respondent Sumeshar is set aside and he is convicted u/s 3/12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 and is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred). The fine shall be paid within three months from today. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half months.