(1.) This is an application under Section 23(7) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, by the keeper of the "Lokasangraha Press" at Poona to set aside the order of the Provincial Government requiring the applicant to deposit Rs. 2,000 as security under Section 3 (5) of the Act. The demand for security was made as it appeared to the Government that certain passages in a book written in Marathi language by Section L. Karandikar called "Savarkar Charitra", i.e. the life of Mr. Savarkar, and printed in the petitioner's press fell under Clauses (a) and/or (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act, There are. in all twenty three such passages which are alleged to incite to or encourage or tend to incite to or encourage, the commission of any offence of murder or any cognizable offence involving violence under Clause (a) or directly or indirectly express approval or admiration of any such offence, or of any person, real or fictitious, who has committed or is alleged of represented to have committed any such offence under Clause (b). The petitioner, however, relies on expln. (1) to Section 4(1) which says that no expression of approval or admiration made in a historical or literary work shall be deemed to be of the nature described in that sub-section unless it has the tendency described in Clause (a). If the book falls under this Explanation, Clause (b) would not apply, and the only thing we have to see is whether it has the tendency described in Clause (a). It is, therefore, necessary to consider that question first. The book must be either historical or literary if it is to fall under the Explanation. Mr. Dharap for the petitioner has urged that it is both ; it is not merely a biography of Savarkar but it also purports to be a history of the revolutionary movement in which he took part from 1905 to 1909, and it is moreover a work of literary merit written in chaste language and attractive style. The author, Mr. Karandikar, is an M.A., LL.B., and a Member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. The book is a bulky volume containing more than 600 pages and divided into sixteen chapters, with an introduction by Mr. N.C. Kelkar. It purports to be a narration of the life of Savarkar, and the author says in his preface that later on he will write about what he calls the exposition of his views.
(2.) The learned Advocate General has contended on the other hand that the book is not a historical work but the biography of a living person describing in detail several incidents of murder of Government officials which it was not necessary to do in a biographical work. He has further urged that as stated in the introduction of the book there was armed resistance to the Government going on at the time! when this book was published in May 1943 and that therefore it was a description of the initial stages of the same revolutionary movement against the Government which continues up to this day. We have got before us the original book and after going through its contents we have no doubt that it is a literary work containing a historical review of the revolutionary1 movement in which Savarkar took part when he was in England. It is true that the biography is of a living person, but it contains a narrative of the revolutionary movement in existence about thirty-five years ago which has now passed into history. Savarkar was no doubt a principal figure in that movement, but that particular movement has already ceased to exist as the persons who took part in it are either dead or have changed their revolutionary cult. We have no materials to hold that the alleged revolutionary movement of violence and sabotage in 1943 is such a continuation of the movement of 1905 to 1909 that the latter can be regarded as pertaining to current events and not to those of history. In our opinion, therefore, the book is a historical work and not merely a narrative of current events. While describing Savarkar's part in it the author has purported to give a historical description of the events mostly without expressing his own opinion on their merits. It does not appear to us to be a one-sided picture but the author has also narrated the opinions of some eminent persons living at that time who thought it to be a misguided and harmful movement. The book also seems to us to possess literary style and to be a contribution to Marathi literature. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it falls under expln. (1) to Section 4, Sub-section (1).
(3.) The Legislature has drawn a clear distinction between a historical or literary work on the one hand and writings such as newspaper articles, pamphlets and similar publications on the other hand. In the case of the latter, approval or admiration of an offence of murder or other violent crime is enough to attract the penal provisions of the Act, but in the case of the former, mere approval or admiration of such offence is not enough, but it must be shown that it has a tendency to encourage them at. the time when the work is published. And that distinction is, indeed," necessary in the interests of the public. Otherwise no true and faithful history of a country can be written. The history of almost every country abounds in violent upheavals of wars and revolutions including deeds of bravery which are held up for the admiration of posterity. No such historical work can be regarded as objectionable unless it has the present tendency to incite people to do such violent acts as may be punishable under the law of the land. That is the test which we have to apply in determining the effect produced in the mind of an average reader after he reads the alleged objectionable passages in their proper context. The learned Advocate General has contended relying on Prithvi Dass Sharma V/s. The Crown (1930) I.L.R. 12 Lah. 345 F.B. that even a single sentence, if obnoxious to Section 4(2), entails forfeiture of the security. We are unable to follow that decision, as our High Court has recently laid down a different rule. In In re Shankar Ramchandra Date (1936) Criminal Revision Application No. 344 of 1936, under the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, Beaumont C.J., in delivering the judgment of the special bench, has observed: It has been laid down many times that in considering whether a passage falls within any of the prohibitions contained in the Press Act we must not take it out of its context. Where, as here, we are dealing with a book, we must take the whole book into consideration including its purpose, and not attach too much importance to particular expressions even if they are of an unguarded, and indeed, objectionable character.... Upon the whole, I have come-to the conclusion that objectionable as that extract is, it is not enough to justify Government condemning the whole book and forfeiting the deposit.