In Re: Nimmagadda Ramaseshayya

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.—The only point urged before me is that in this case the prosecution has not let in evidence to prove that the order

infringed had been published in the manner in which the officer who passed the order had directed it to be published and consequently the

prosecution must fail. Reliance was placed for this on the decision of this Court in The Public Prosecutor Vs. Narayana Reddy and Others, . In this

case evidence has been let in as to how the notification has been published. It has been published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 8th June,

1943 and the notification is signed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The person who is said to have directed the notification to be published

is also the same person. The person who has prescribed the manner in which the notification has to be published has himself signed the notification

wich is published in the Fort St. George Gazette. The manner of publication must hence be presumed to be in the manner in which it was published

in the Fort St. George Gazette. In this case it has not been suggested in the cross-examination of the Tahsildar that the officer who passed the

order directed it to be published in any different manner. There is also the usual presumption of official acts, that official act has been done

properly. The lower Court was justified without any further evidence in acting on the presumption that it was directed to be published in the manner

in which it was published. This aspect of the case has not been considered by my learned brother in The Public Prosecutor Vs. Narayana Reddy

and Others, . My attention has also been drawn to one ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Krishna Chandra ILR (1945) All. 682

and to the decision in Emperor Vs. Leslie Gwilt, . There is nothing to indicate that in any of those cases there was any notification published which

was proved or that the notification was signed by the same officer who has directed the manner in which it was to be published. In these

circumstances, I do not think those two rulings have any application to the facts of the present case.

In the result''this petition fails and is dismissed.