MRAMAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the Judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore, to Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1953 confirming the conviction under Section 292, I. P. C., but modifying the sentence passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 10 of 1952-53.

(2.) The petitioner-accused is the editor of a monthly journal known as 'Kama Kala'. The prosecution case is that the accused-petitioner is distributing and has put into circulation this monthly journal which contains obscene writings and pictures. Eleven copies of the journal of different months have been exhibited in the case and three witnesses were examined for the prosecution and according to them the journal contains obscene writings harmful to youngmen and women. On the other hand, the accused has examined two witnesses of whom one is Dr. Puttanna, a retired Surgeon and who was the Principal of the Medical College and the other gentleman is the well-known author Sri Devadu Narasimha Sastry. The Doctor is of opinion that there is nothing obscene in the pamphlets and that it is fit to be prescribed as a text book in Medical Colleges and Schools. Sri Devadu Narasimha Sastry is of opinion that he has no hesitation in placing these pamphlets in the hands of children of sufficient age.

(3.) We have been taken through some portions of the pamphlets and before considering the question whether they are obscene it may be useful to state that what has to be considered as obscene or indecent has changed from time to time and may not exactly be the same in different countries. What is tolerated in one country may be considered as bordering on obscenity in another country. It may also be stated that there has been a difference of opinion as to whether young men and women have to be educated on questions of sex and if so, to what extent. Though the tendency in recent times is to consider that young men and women should know something of sex, the orthodox view is still that such a knowledge is dangerous. The intention however of 'Legislature is not to prohibit knowledge of sex being spread on scientific lines. What however is objectionable according to law is that a person should not take advantage of the curiosity of young men and women to know something of sex and make money out of publications that will have the effect of depraving their minds.