Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned article and summons show that no offence under Sections 153/153A IPC is made out and the Magistrate has erred in law while issuing summons to the applicants. It has been submitted that it is settled legal proposition that the court has to read complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence punishable under Sections 153/153-A IPC. He has further submitted that merely inciting the feelings of one community or group cannot attract either of the Section 153/153A IPC. But in the present case, the subordinate Court has not applied its mind properly and issued summons in a mechanical manner without looking into the fact that there is no ingredient available on record which may indicate that the Magazine had incited the two communities or groups to come to clash together.

11. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 5 SCC 1 (Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharastra). Relevant para nos.15, 16 and 17 are quoted hereinbelow :

15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The question to be decided now is whether the paragraph complained of would attract the penal consequences envisaged in Section 153-A IPC. Section 153-A IPC was amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969). It consists of three clauses of which clauses (a) and (b) alone are material for the case on hand, which read as under:[153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.(1) Whoever

16. Section 153-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquility. The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the circumstances in which the book was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153-A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.

17. In Ramesh v. Union of India [(1988) 1 SCC 668 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 1988 SC 775] this Court held that TV serial Tamas did not depict communal tension and violence and the provisions of Section 153-A IPC would not apply to it. It was also not prejudicial to the national integration falling under Section 153-B IPC. Approving the observations of Vivian Bose, J. inBhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt.[AIR 1947 Nag 1] the Court observed that the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. It is the standard of ordinary reasonable man or as they say in English law the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus. (Ramesh case [(1988) 1 SCC 668 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 1988 SC 775] , SCC p. 676, para 13)