http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANGAL SAO

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/03/1962

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. KAPUR, J.L. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA

CITATION:  1963 AIR  445            1963 SCR  (1) 148

ACT: Radio  Receiving  Set-Keeping  and  using  without   licence Whether an offence-Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of  1885), s. 20.

HEADNOTE: The respondent was found using a Radio without a licence and was prosecuted under s. 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as  well as s. 3 and s. 6 of the Indian Wireless  Telegraphy Act,  1933  (17  of 1933).  He was  convicted  of  both  the offenses  by the lower courts but the High  Court  acquitted him of the offence under s. 20 of the Indian Telegraph  Act. On an appeal by the State against the acquittal. Held, that a Radio Receiving Set is a "telegraph" within the meaning of s. 3 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Chopra, [A. I. R.]  1962, S. C. R. 9, 16, referred to. Held,  further, that using and keeping a Radio Set  amounted to "maintaining" and "working" a "telegraph" under s. 3. (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 1960. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated April 11, 1960, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 76 of 1960. S.   P. Varma and P. D. Menon, for the appellant. The respondents did not appear. 1962.  March 29.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA  RAO,  J.-This  appeal by special  leave  against  the judgment  and  order of the High Court at Patna  raises  the question whether-to use neutral                             149 terms-the  keeping  or using of a radio set  by  the  person without  a  licence would be an offence under s. 20  of  the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), hereinafter  called the Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

The  respondent is a businessman, having a shop in the  city of  Patna.   In  November, 1955  an  Inspector  of  Wireless Telegraph  visited  his  shop and found a  radio  set  being played  therein.   As  he  was using  the  radio  without  a licence,  be was prosecuted, under ss. 3 and 6 of the  India Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (17 of 1933) and s. 20 of  the Act.   The  Judicial Magistrate, Patna City,  convicted  the respondent  under the said sections and sentenced  him  only under  s.  20 of the Act to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-  and  in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.  On appeal  the learned Sessions Judge, Patna.,  confirmed  both the conviction and sentence.  On revision, the High Court at Patna  set aside the conviction and sentence under s. 20  of the  Act, but confirmed the conviction under ss. 3 and 6  of the  Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and sentenced  him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo  simple imprisonment  for  one  month.   The  State  of  Bihar   has preferred the present appeal against the order of  acquittal made by the High Court under s. 20 of the    Act. The High Court set aside the conviction under s.  20 of  the Act  on the ground that the use of a wireless receiving  set without  a  licence would not be an offence under  the  said section having regard to the provisions of s. 4 of the  Act. Mr.  Varma,  learned Counsel for the  State,  canvasses  the correctness of that decision. It  would be convenient at the outset to read  the  relevant provisions of the Act as they stood before amendment by  Act 15 of 1961.               Section 3. (1) "telegraph"     means      an               150               electric, galvanic or magnetic telegraph,  and               includes appliances and apparatus for  making,               transmitting  or receiving telegraphic,  tele-               phonic  or  other communications by  means  of               electricity, galvanism or magnetism.               Section  4.  (1)  Within  India,  the  Central               Government shall have the exclusive  privilege               of establishing, maintaining and working tele-               graphs:               Provided that the Central Government may grant               a  licence,  on such conditions  and  in  con-               sideration of such payments as it thinks  fit,               to any person to establish, maintain or work a               telegraph within any part of India.               Provided  further that the Central  Government               may,   by  rules  made  under  this  Act   and               published  in  the Official  Gazette,  permit,               subject to such restrictions and conditions as               it thinks fit, the establishment,  maintenance               and working.               (a)   of  wireless telegraphs on ships  within               Indian  territorial  waters  and  on  aircraft               within  or above India, or Indian  territorial               waters, ’and               (b)   of   telegraphs  other   than   wireless               telegraphs within any part of India.               Section  20.  (1) If any  person  establishes,               maintains or works a telegraph within India in               contravention  of the provisions of section  4               or  otherwise than as permitted by  rule  made               under  that section, he shall be punished,  if               the  telegraph  is a wireless  telegraph  with               imprisonment which may extend to three  years,               or with fine, or with both, and, in any  other               case,  with  a fine which may  extend  to  one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             thousand rupees.                                    151 Under  the said section, if a person establishes,  maintains or  works a telegraph without a licence in contravention  of the  provisions of a. 4, he would be committing  an  offence punishable  thereunder.   The first question  is  whether  a radio  receiving set is a "telegraph" within the meaning  of the definition given in the Act.  This Court had an occasion to consider the scope of the said definition in the  context of  a  Post  and  Telegraph  Wireless  Station,  which   was receiving  communications  from  different  cities  of   the country,  in  Senior  Electric  Inspector  v.   Laxminarayan Chopra(1).   After quoting the provisions of s. 3(1) of  the Act, this Court proceeded to observe :               "The  Telegraph  Wireless  Receiving   Station               clearly   comes  within  the   definition   of               "telegraph"  in the Telegraph Act.  The  Tele-               graph  Act  was passed in  1885.   "Telegraph"               then included ,an electric, galvanic, or  mag-               netic    telegraph    and    appliances    and               apparatus  ...... for telegraphic,  telephonic               or   other   communications   by   means    of               electricity, galvanism or magnetism".  At that               time Wireless telegraphy or radio had not been               developed.   In the year 1914, s.3(1)  of  the               said  Act was amended and the following  words               were  inserted  after  the  words   "apparatus               for".:  " making, transmitting or  receiving".               With  the  result that, after  the  amendment,               receiving   of  communications  by  means   of               electricity was included in the definition.  A               wireless receiving station certainly  receives               communications  by  means of  electricity  and               therefore,   it  is  "telegraph"  within   the               meaning of the said definition. If a telegraph wireless receiving station is a telegraph  as defined  in  s.  3(1)  of the Act,  a  radio  set  receiving communications should equally be a (1)  A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 159,161, 152 telegraph  within  the meaning of the said  section;  for  a radio  set receives communications by means of  electricity. Wireless  transmitter  transmits .sound  as  electromagnetic waves  and the said waves are detected and received  by  the receiving  apparatus.  We, therefore, hold that a  receiving set is a telegraph within the meaning of the Act. The  next  question is whether the  respondent  established, maintained  or worked a telegraph within the territories  of India  in contravention of the provisions of s.  4.  Section 4(1)  consists  of a main part and two provisos.   The  main part  of the section confers an exclusive privilege  on  the Central  Government of establishing maintaining and  working telegraphs.    The  second  proviso  enables  the’   Central Government  to  make  rules  to  permit  the  establishment, maintenance and working of wireless telegraphs on ships  and aircraft within a specified area or of telegraphs other than wireless  telegraph  within any part of  India.   The  first proviso  confers a power on the Central Government to  grant licence  to establish, maintain or work a  telegraph  within any  part of India.  There is difference in the  phraseology used  in the main part and the second proviso and that  used in the first proviso.  While in the main part and the second proviso   the   conjunction   "and"   is   placed    between "’maintaining"  and  "’working", in the  first  proviso  the disjunctive  "or" is used.  It is not necessary  to  express

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

our view whether in the main part and the second proviso the three words "establishing", "maintaining" and "working"  can be  read disjunctively, for we are only concerned  with  the first proviso which expressly made them disjunctive.   Under s.  20 of the Act also the disjunctive "or" is used  between ,,maintains"  and ",,works".  It is, therefore.  clear  that under  the first proviso to s. 4 the Central Government  may grant  a licence to a person for  establishing,  maintaining and working a telegraph or in respect of any of them; and if a person either establishes, maintains or  153 works  a telegraph without a licence or in contravention  of the  terms  of licence, he would be  committing  an  offence under s. 20 of the Act. It  is  suggested that neither of the three terms  would  be appropriate  for keeping a radio set or using  it.   Learned counsel  for  the appellant argues that keeping or  using  a radio set would be maintaining or working a radio within the meaning  of  that section.  In the  Shorter  Oxford  English Dictionary the following meaning, among others, is given  to the  word  "maintain"  ;  "to keep  in  being;  to  preserve unimpaired ; to pay or furnish the means of keeping up of  ; to  keep supplied or equipped to keep in repair.   A  person who  has  a  radio  set for the purpose  of  using  it  must necessarily   keep  it  in  good  condition  and  bear   the expenditure  for so keeping it and for repairing it,  if  it goes  wrong.,  He can, therefore, appropriately be  said  to maintain it within the meaining of the section. The  same  dictionary  gives various  meaning  to  the  verb ,’work".   The following are some of them "to bestow  labour or effort upon" ; "to manipulate ,so as to bring it into the required  condition" ; ",to operate upon so as to  get  into some  state or convert into something else" ; "to  bring  or get into some condition by labour or exertion".  If a person tunes a radio, he can properly be said to operate upon it or manipulate  it  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  the   said communications.   Such  a person works on  the  radio.   We, therefore,  hold that a person in possession of a radio  for use maintains as well as works it.  In this case it has been established that when the Inspector visited the shop of  the respondent$ the latter was using the radio and therefore was working it. Reliance  was placed by the High Court on a judgment of  the Madras  High  Court in In Re Pandian (1),  wherein  Pandrang Row, J., appears to (1)  A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 821. 154 accept the contention that the use of a wireless set without a  licence  is not an offence under s. 20 of the  Act.   The learned Judge observed :               "It  is, to say the least, extremely  doubtful               whether  the use of a wireless  receiving  set               without  a licence would amount to an  offence               under  s. 20, Telegraph Act, which in view  of               s. 4 of that Act could not have been  intended               to   include  wireless  receiving  sets   used               ordinarily to receive broadcast programmes." The  learned Judge has not expressed a final opinion on  the construction of the section.  Presumably, he was of  opinion that   s.  4  applies  only  to  a  telephone   established, maintained and worked by Government or with its  permission. With great respect, the learned Judge has omitted to  notice the  first  proviso  to s. 4 of the Act  which  takes  in  a licence of a telegraph for one or other of the three  purpo- ses  mentioned therein.  In the result, we hold that as  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

respondent used the radio without a licence, he committed an offence under s. 20 of the Act. We, therefore, convict him under s. 20 of the Act also.  But in the circumstances of this case, we think that no separate sentence is called for.  The sentence already imposed  under ss. 3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933,  is sufficient.   In the result, the order of the High Court  is modified to the extent indicated.  155