# SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) STATE OF BIHAR v. l\IANGAL SAO

- **Citation:** [1963] 1 S.C.R. 148
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-04-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 1960
- **Bench:** J. L. Kapur, K. Sobba Rao, Raghubar Dayal, T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-reports-1963-state-of-bihar-v-l-iangal-sao-2530
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Radlo Receiving Set-Keeping ancl using witlwut licencelrltether an offence-Indian Telegraph Act, 188.; (13 of 188'5),
s. 20.
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 offences by the lower courts but the High Court acquitted
him of the offence under s. 20 of the Indian Tdegraph 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 ( l) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
Senior Electric Inspector v. La.xmi Chopra, [A. I. R J
1962, S. C.R. 9, 16, referred to.
Held, furth<r, that using and . keeping a Radio Set
amounted to ''maintaining'' and "working" a "telegraph"
under s. 3. (I) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

## Text

IU61 --
A1orch !9.
Subba f1ao J.
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963)
STATE OF BIHAR
v.
l\IANGAL SAO
(J. L. KAPUR, K. SOBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL
and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Radlo Receiving Set-Keeping ancl using witlwut licencelrltether an offence-Indian Telegraph Act, 188.; (13 of 188'5),
s. 20.
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 offences by the lower courts but the High Court acquitted
him of the offence under s. 20 of the Indian Tdegraph 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 ( l) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
Senior Electric Inspector v. La.xmi Chopra, [A. I. R J
1962, S. C.R. 9, 16, referred to.
Held, furth<r, that using and . keeping a Radio Set
amounted to ''maintaining'' and "working" a "telegraph"
under s. 3. (I) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
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.--Tbis appeal by special leave
aiiainst the judgment and order of the High Court
at Patna raises the question whether-to use neutral
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 (13of1885),
hereinafter called the Act.
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, he was prosecuted, under ss. 3 and 6 of the India Wireless
TeJegraphy 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. 200j- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. On appeal the
]earned Sessions Judge, Patna, confirmed both the
conviction and sentence. On revision, the High
Court a.t 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
R.s. 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 decisior. .
It would be, convenient at the outset to read
the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood before amendment by Act 15of1961.
Section 3. ( 1) utelegraph''
means
an
1
196Z
.l;tate of Biha,.
v.
!ti angal Sao
SubbaR!loJ.
150
J96Z
State of B1har
'·
Mango/ Sao
SubQa Rao J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l9G3J
electric, galvanic or magnetic telegraph, and
includes appliances and apparatus for making,
transmitting or receiving telegraphic, telephonic or other communications by means of
electricity, galvanism or magnetism.
Section 4.
(I) Within India, the Central
Government shall have the exclusive privilege
of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs:
Provided that the Central Government may
grant a licence, on such conditions and in consideration of such payments as it thinks fit, to
any person to establish, maintain or work a
telegraph within any pa.rt 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
aircrafts within or above India, or Indian
territorial waters, and
(b}
of telegraphs other than wireless
telegraphs within any part of India.
Section 20. ( l) 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 punishe<l, if
the telegraph is a wireless telegraph with
impriPonment 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 thousand rupees.
--
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 commit.ting an offence punishable thereunder.
The first questiou is whether a radio receiving set is
a "telegraph" within the meaniug uf the <lefinition
given in the Act.
This Court had an occ~1sion to
consider the scope of the said ddi11ition in the
context of a Post and Telegraph Wireless Station,
which was receiving communications from rlifFerent
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 proeeeded to
observe:
"The
Telegraph
'Wireless
Receiving
Station clearly comt•s within the definition of
"telegraph" in the 'felegraph Act.
The Telegraph Act was passed in 1885.
''Telegrnph"
then included "a.n electric, ·galvanic, fir 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.~>{1) of the said
Act was ·amended and ihe following words
were inserted after the words "appa.ratus for":
"making, transmitting or receiving". With
the result that, after the amendment, reoeiviug of communications by means of electricity
was included in the definition. A wireless
receiving station certainly
r~ceives 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.J.R, l96Z ::;.C.159, 161.
J!iG2
State of Bil.
v.
Ma11gal Sao
Sub ha ll ao .;
'' i,t
Stole oj Bihar
v.
Mang<Jl Sao
Subba lfao -I.
152
SUPREME' COURT REPORTS [1963]
telegraph within the meaning of the said section;
for a radio set receives communications. by means
of electricity.
Wireless transmitter transmits
sound as electro· magnetic waves and the said waves
are detected and received by the receiving apparatus. We, therefore, hold that a receiving 8et is a
telegraph within the meaning of the Act.
The next question is whether the respcndent
''stablihhed, maintained or worked a telegraph with·
in the tcrritori<'s of India in contravc·ntion of the
provisions of s. 4. Section 4(1) consists of a main
part an<l two provisos. The main part of the section
conf1 rs 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
est,1bliRhment, maintenance and working of wireless
telegraphs on ~hips and aircrafts 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 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
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COUAT REPOltTS 153
works a telegraph witllout a licence or in 'contravention of the terms of licence, he would be
committing an offence under 8 • .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 me8!ning, 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 k.eep it
in good condition and bear the expenditure for so
keeping it and for repairing it, if it goes w~ong. He
can, therefore, appropriately be said to maintain it
within the meaining of t~e 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.
1962
St:Jte of Bihu
.....
Mangal Sao
Subba Rao J.
1902
Stt. te of !Jih'lr
v,
111 ang9l Sao
Subb,, Rao J.
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
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 i~, to say the least, extremely doubtful whet her 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 o:r.oly to a telephone
established, maintained and worked by Government
or with its permission. With great respeet, 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 purposes mentioned therein. In the result, we hold that
as the 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, I 933, is sufficient.
In the result, the order of the High Court is modified to the ext{lnt indicated.
---·-