SHIV KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 30-7-73 passed by Addittional Sessions Judge, Meerut, in a case under section 153-A I P.C. In the year 1969 the applicant was editor of a Weekly newspaper known as "Mazdoor Pataka". In the issue of this paper dated 21-1-69 he published an article under the heading "Chunao ka Bahishkar karo, Chunao ek Rajnaitik Dhokha hai". Through this article he asked the public to boycott the elections and also extolled Naxalite activities and the ideology of Mao. THIS article of the applicant was said to have created disharmony between the capitalists and the labour class as also between those who believed, in democratic form of government and those who believed in totalitarian rule. Accordingly, he was sent up to stand his trial under sec tion 153-A I. P. C. The applicant admitted to have published the article as aforesaid. He however, contended that he has not committed any offence under section 153-A I. P. C. The learned Magistrate found the prosecution case proved against the applicant and he, therefore, convicted him under section 153-A I. P. C. and sentenced him to one year R. I. The applicant went up in appeal against his conviction. The appellate Court felt that the trial Court had not conducted the case against the applicant in a proper manner inasmuch as it framed no charge in the case and did not examine him properly under section 342 Cr. P. C. Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and remanded the case for retrail. Aggrie ved, the applicant has come up in revi sion against the order passed by the appellate Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and after doing so I am firmly of the view that this revision must be allowed. I find that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the scope and content of the provisions of section 153-A I. P. C, Section 153-A as it existed in January 1969 read as follows :- "153-A.-Promoting enmity bet ween different groups on grounds of religion, race, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to mainten ance of hormony. Whoever- (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by sings, or by visible representations, or otherwise, pro motes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or on any other ground whatsoever feeling of enmity or hatred between different relegious, racial or language groups or castes or communities ; or (b) commits any act which is pre judicial to the maintenance of harmo ny between different religious, recial or language groups or castes, commu nities and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." For the purposes of this case only clause (a) of the above section appears to be relevant. A perusal of this clause will show that a person would be guilty under section 153-A I. P. C. only when by words, either spoken or written, he promotes or attempts to promote feel ings of enmity or hatred between diffe rent religious, racial, or language groups or castes or communities on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or com munity. We have to see whether the article written by the applicant brings the case within the four corners of clause (a) or not. The article is on the record of the case and I have perused it very carefully. The article consists of two parts : One part relates to the resolution which the Communist Party of India had passed and the other part carries in its folds his personal views on the political situation of the country as it prevailed at that time. The views expressed by him go to show that he is a hardboiled Naxalite communist and has no faith in democratic institutions. He believes in the cult of violence and thinks that it is only by violent revolu tion as preached by Mao that the country can go forward and achieve progresss. He, therefore, appealed to the masses to boycott elections and organise revolu tionary class struggles. In this case we are not concerned with the question as to what the applicant says is correct or not. All that we have to see is whether the views expressed by him are such which can bring him within the grip of section 153-A I. P. C. In my opinion, section 153-A cannot apply to the facts of the case because in the impugned article the applicant has not said anything to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different reli gious, racial or language groups or castes or communities on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community. Whatever views the applicant has expressed in the article, they are purely poli tical in nature. One can, however, feel tempted to say that this article has given a call to the poor masses to rebel against the capitalist class, but such a call to re bel is not punishable under section 153-A I. P. C. It was, therefore not a case in which the applicant should have been convicted. The order passed by the Court below is not at all sustainable and must, therefore, be set aside. In the result, I allow this revision and set aside the orders passed by the Courts below. The applicant is acquit ted of the offence charged. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged and he need not surrender to them.