EMPEROR Vs. TKPITRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three revisional applications arising out of proceedings taken against three persons (1) T.K. Pitre, (2) Y.B. Jathar and (3) N.K. Powar under Section 108 of the Criminal P. C. in respect of the Marathi pamphlet marked Ex. 1C These proceedings were initiated with the necessary sanction of the Local Government. The opponents were stated to be the author, printer and publisher of the pamphlet in question respectively. As regards No. 3, it was further alleged that he was also the publisher of a similar pamphlet in Canarese (Ex. 1D). It was alleged that the pamphlets contained matter, the publication of which would be punishable under Section 124A or Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The first two opponents are not concerned with the Canarese pamphlet. The subject- matter of both the pamphlets is substantially the same: and it is not suggested that Ex. 1D can be differentiated from Ex. 1C, so far as the nature of the contents is concerned It is, however, contended that the Marathi pamphlet does not contain any matter obnoxious to Sub-sections 124A and 153A. It was further contended on behalf of these persons that the prosecution should prove that the persons or a alleged to be the author, printer and publisher were really the author, printer and publisher of the pamphlet Ex. 1C The prosecution relied on the printed pamphlet itself and upon the statement of the Manager of the Press (Ex. 2A) submitted to the Collector under Section 18 of the Press and Registration of Books Act XXV of 1867, in proof of the statements as to the authorship, printing and publishing of the pamphlet. The declaration made by Jathar (opponent No. 2) under Section 4 of the Act of 1867 was proved. It was admitted on behalf of the opponents by a, purshis that the statement, Ex. 2A, was signed by the Manager of the press, and that he was in fact the Manager. The opponents did not expressly deny the allegations as to their being the author, printer and publisher of the pamphlet, but denied being liable under Section 108, Criminal Procedure Code, and put the prosecution to the proof of the allegations. The learned Magistrate found on the materials that the pamphlet contained seditious matter or matter the publication of which would be punishable under Section 153A, that the opponents were the author, printer and publisher of the pamphlet and as such responsible for the dissemination of such matter. He ordered them to furnish security for good behaviour and the opponents complied with the order: a further order was made against the opponent No. 3 as regards the pamphlet Ex. 1D.

(2.) The opponents appealed to the District Magistrate, but the learned District Magistrate did not allow the argument as to the burden of proof and insufficiency of evidence and held the document in question to contain seditious or otherwise objectionable matter: he accordingly dismissed the appeals. In the applications before us, among other things, it has been argued that the pamphlet does not contain any matter referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 108, Criminal Procedure Code. But we have not considered it necessary to hear the learned Advocate General on this point. Making due allowance for the avowed object of the pamphlet, the occasion for the publication and for the style and exaggeration which may be expected in poetry and taking the pamphlet as a whole, bearing in mind that each song is complete though undoubtedly forming part of the whole series composed for the occasion, I do not think that there is any reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion of the lower Courts on this point. It will serve no useful purpose to discuss the question in detail.

(3.) This brings me to the further points raised by Divan Bahadur Rao on behalf of opponent No. 1. It is urged that there is no evidence to show that he disseminated, or attempted to disseminate or in anywise abetted the dissemination of the objectionable matter and that he was the author of the pamphlet, In connection with these points I may at once state that the fact of his being the author of " Swadeshi Paden" Parts I and II, which were proscribed in 1911 is no evidence of his being the author of this particular pamphlet. I mention this as the learned Advocate-General relied upon it in the course of his argument.