P K CHAKRAVARTY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the appelant. Mr. P.K. Chakravarty, has been ordered to enter into his own recognizance in the sum of Rs. 500 to be of good behaviour under Section 108, Cr, P.C. The order has been made in respect of an article in the issue for the 27 April of this year of a newspaper called the Forward which is a newspaper printed in English and circulating in Calcutta. The circumstances at the time of the publication are shortly these. An outbreak of rioting having occurred some little time before in parts of this city, it was after some time brought to notice that one of the causes of this outbreak, or, at least of its continuance, was the fact that certain people were circulating inflammatory leaflets in the vernacular in the streets, leaflets calculated to incite members of different communities to violence against one another. The particular pamphlet which is animadverted on in the article in question was a pamphlet in Urdu printed on yellow paper and circulating apparently for the benefit of the Muhammadans. What the appellant has done as editor is this. He has printed the pamphlet in an English translation. He has also given a transliteration in English letters of the original Urdu and what he says is that this pamphlet was being circulated and that it is not difficult to trace the source from which it emanated. Then he adds: "Letus waitand see what steps the guardians of law and order take in the matter." The head lines of the article are: "Yellow Urdu Leaflet; Attempts at Incitement; "Will Mahomedan Leaders Intervene?" At the end of the translation, there is an extract from what appears to be a daily paper circulating among the Muhammadans. That extract does not seem to require a special description. It is not alleged that there is anything in the history of the Forward to give the article a special meaning or to be evidence of any special intention as regards this article. It so happened that, in the next column, there was printed an appeal signed by eminent Hindu and Muhammadan gentlemen earnestly praying the members of both communities to cease attacking one another; this appeal is also printed verbatim and all the signatures are copied out. One has, therefore, to approach this matter on the basis that, unless in the mere copying of the Urdu pamphlet there is enough to entitle the Chief Presidency Magistrate to make his order under Section 108, Cr. P.C. there is nothing else against the present appellant and the order cannot be supported.

(2.) It will, I think, be convenient if I commence by giving an illustration. In the course of the recent riots, it has happened that a Hindu has been badly assaulted and murdered by a Muhammadan or that a Muhammadan has been assaulted and murdered by a Hindu. If the next morning in a newspaper printed in English and circulating in Calcutta there appeared a statement as an ordinary item of news to the effect that Babu so and so was going down a certain street and was attacked and murdered by men of the opposite community, no body would suppose that that piece of news, unless it was written up and made an excuse for incitement to ill-feeling, would of itself be any breach of the law. But it is perfectly plain that in some circumstances, such an item of news might have some tendency with some people to induce them to entertain feelings of hatred or enmity towards the class to which the offending person belonged. It is, therefore, of great importance that the Court should consider carefully whether it is really the law that any person who prints or publishes anything which, in fact, has any tendency to promote ill feeling between classes has committed an offence or has rendered himself by that mere fact liable to proceedings under Section 108, Cr. P.C. In substance, my opinion of this case is that the newspaper here has given its readers in the ordinary way a perfectly legitimate and sensible piece of news without any intention to utilize that piece of news for the purpose of promoting or furthering class hatred and that even if the news is of such a character that it is possible to suppose that some people reading it may momentarily or foolishly be induced to entertain unreasonable feelings towards a class of other people, this is not enough to bring it within the mischief either of Section 153A, Indian Indian Penal Code, or Section 108, Cr. P.C. In my judgment there is no reason to say that this editor because he has published the pamphlet itself and a translation of it for the benefit of his English readers has gone out of his way to utilize this information for an oblique purpose, namely, the promotion of class hatred. Apart altogether from the fact that the very next column contained an appeal in the contrary sense, the only comment that the editor made was--"Let us wait and see what steps the guardians of law and order take in the matter." That being my view of the facts of the case, I propose to say something about the law for the purpose of showing why I do not think that the order made by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was justified.

(3.) It is settled law, that Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, does not mean that any person who publishes words that have a tendency to promote class hatred can be convicted under that section. The words "promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity" are to be read as connoting a successful or unsuccessful attempt to promote feelings of enmity. It must be the purpose or part of the purpose of the accused to promote such feelings and, if it is no part of his purpose, the mere circumstance that there may be a tendency is not sufficient. It is quite true that whether or not the promoting of enmity is the intention is to be collected in most cases from, the internal evidence of the words themselves, but I know of no authority for saying that other evidence cannot be looked at; and it appears to me that the explanation shows quite conclusively that in any matter on which other evidence could assist it may be taken. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has himself pointed out that, even on the question of likelihood to promote ill-feelings, the facts and cir-circumstances of the time must be taken into account and something must be known of the kind of people to whom the words are addressed. Although other evidence is not excluded, it is true that from the nature of the case, the internal evidence of the words used and the meaning of the words used will very generally be decisive of the question whether or not the Court is confronted with a successful or unsuccessful attempt to promote feelings of enmity. They will be decisive in all cases where the intention is expressly declared; also if the words used naturally, clearly and indubitably have such a tendency, then it must be presumed that the publisher intended that which is the natural result of the words used [In re Amrita Bazar Patrika 54 Ind. Cas. 578 : 47 C. 190 : 23 C.W.N. 1057 : 30 C.L.J. 289 : 21 Cr. L.J. 98 (S.B.)]. But the words used and their true meaning are never more than evidence of intention and it is the real intention of the accused that is the test [Joy Chandra Sircar V/s. Emperor 10 Ind. Cas. 948 : 38 C. 214 : 12 Cr. L.J. 318, In the matter of Amrita Bazar Patrika 54 Ind. Cas. 578 : 47 C. 190 : 23 C.W.N. 1057 : 30 C.L.J. 289 : 21 Cr. L.J. 98 (S.B.) and Annie Besant V/s. Advocate-General, Madras 52 Ind. Cas. 209 : 43 M. 146 : 23 C.W.N. 986 : 37 M.L.J. 139 : 17 A.L.J. 925 : 21 Bom. L.R. 867 :(1919) M.W.N. 555 : 10 L.W. 451 : 20 Cr. L.J. 593 : 26 M.L.T. 408 : 1 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 74 : 35 T.L.R. 500 : 46 I.A. 176 (P.C.)]. I cannot assent to any doctrine of "constructive intention" such as the Magistrate has in this case adopted. So much for the meaning of the substntive part of Section 153A.