ANANTANATH CHATTARJI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Anantanath Chatterji of Kendrapara against his conviction under Rule 39 of the Defence of India Rules for the possession of two booklets called "Red Flag" and "Struggle for Communist Unity" which were said to be documents containing a prejudicial report within the meaning of that rule. The accused was convicted by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Kendrapara on these charges and acquitted on others, having been in custody for four months, and sentenced to a period of three months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal to the Court of Session at Cuttack, his conviction was confirmed but his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone having regard to what the learned Sessions Judge described as "antediluvian" nature of the booklets concerned. I have perused both the booklets, and the first thing that strikes one is that they do not contain anything amounting to a report prejudicial or otherwise in any ordinary acceptance of the meaning of those words. The words "prejudicial report" are, however, defined in Rule 34 as including "any visible representation, which is an incitement to the commission of a prejudicial act". I suppose a printed book must be assumed to be "a visible representation". It is stated by the learned Magistrate that these two documents have been proscribed by the Government of Bihar under R. 40 of the Defence of India Rules. It does not appear, however, that there is any corresponding proscription by the Government of this Province and, in any case, it is not a relevant fact in the case of a prosecution under Rule 39 and ought not to have been brought to the notice of the Court. Under Rule 39 it is for the Court and not for the Provincial Government to determine whether or not a document is prejudicial.

(2.) The document "Red Flag" was, at the time of its publication, undoubtedly prejudicial. It was clearly an incitement to violent revolution. At the same time, I entirely agree with the description of it by the learned Sessions Judge. It was composed under circumstances so different from those existing at the present day that it is difficult to regard it as a serious instrument of propaganda at all. Its object was to foment revolution to prevent India being drawn into active participation in a war against Russia. Seeing that India is now fighting with Russia against Germany and Italy and with other allies against Japan to resist an immediate threat of the invasion, it is difficult to see how a document so obviously out of date could really be prejudicial. It is, however, no doubt technically within the meaning of the section, but I agree with the Sessions Judge that in case of conviction the possession of such a document would only warrant a nominal sentence. The second document "Struggle for Communist Unity" does not appear to be a prejudicial document at all.

(3.) It contains the usual communist references to revolution but only in the vaguest terms as an event likely to occur spontaneously at some unspecified future time. No evidence was adduced to show that the communist party was an illegal association and in fact I have reason to suppose that it is not. This pamphlet is nothing more than an exhortation to all communists to sink their party differences and form one united party. It did not contain, so far as I can see, any direct incitement to adopt other than constitutional means for achieving their objects.