STATE Vs. DINA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hakim Dina Nath, the editor and publisher of a journal called 'Munawwar', Nand Singh the keeper and Joginder Singh the manager of Guru Nanak Press were prosecuted under Section 292, I. P. C., for the article printed in the two issues of May and June 1953 of that journal. Separate charges were framed for each issue of the journal. Dina Nath admitted that he was the editor and the publisher of this journal and that he was the author of the same but he denied that it was obscene. Nand Singh admitted that he was the keeper of the press but pleaded that the article was printed in his absence while Joginder Singh pleaded that he was working merely as a clerk in the press and that he had no knowledge that the article was obscene. After hearing the evidence produced by the parties the trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the said article was obscene and sentenced Dina Nath to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay Rs. 200/fine on each charge but the sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently. Nand Singh and Joginder Singh were ordered to pay Rs. 75/- and Rs. 25/-, respectively, on each charge. The trial Magistrate confiscated the copies of the journal containing the offending article under Section 521, Criminal P. C. On appeal Dina Nath and Nand Singh were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on the finding that Section 292, I. P. C., had been impliedly repealed by the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act No. 56 of 1951 (hereinafter called the 1951 Act). It was further held that in any case Joginder Singh could not have been prosecuted under the 1951 Act and therefore he was rightly prosecuted under Section 292, I. P. C., but as the prosecution had failed to prove that Joginder Singh had any knowledge of the offending article being obscene his acquittal was ordered. The State has appealed to this Court against the order of acquittal under Section 417, Criminal P. C.

(2.) The point that requires decision in this appeal is whether Section 292, I. P. C., must be deemed to have been impliedly repealed by the 1951 Act so far as the keeper of the press and the publisher are concerned.

(3.) Now it is well established that Courts of law are not in favour of holding that a statute or a section has been repealed by implication by sub-sequent legislation. The implied repeal may, however, be inferred if the special Act read as a whole is intended to be complete in itself. Forewe I L J. approved of the rule stated in -' Rex v. Wright, (1738) 1 Burr 543 (A), in his judgment in -- "Lowe v. Dorling & Son', (1906) 2 KB 772 (B), and observed at page 784 in these words :