Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.29 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 29.02.2012 in S.C. No.459 of 2001, acquitted A.1 to A.5 of the offence under Section 153-A IPC, but, convicted and sentenced them of the offences under Sections 124-A and 153-B as under:

Provisions under Sentence which convicted S.124-A Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine http://www.judis.nic.in  Crl.A. Nos. 306 & 392 of 2012 Provisions under Sentence which convicted of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine S.153-B of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment 2.30 Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentences, while Samimul Islam (A.1) and Syed Abdur Rahman (A.2) have preferred Crl.A. No.306 of 2012, Syed Mohammed (A.3), Khader Babha (A.4) and Shah Jahan (A.5) have preferred Crl. A. No.392 of 2012.

13 Thus, from the evidence of Vijay (P.W.2) and Sundar Rajan (P.W.14), one can infer that Shah Jahan (A.5) and Abu Tahir (juvenile accused) had started distributing the newsletters and midway, they were apprehended. That apart, for fastening criminal liability under Section 124-A IPC or Section 153-B IPC, communication as required under the preventive detention law is not a pre-requisite.

17 Mr. Sankarasubbu's fourth contention is that there is no evidence to show that violence had resulted pursuant to the publication of the impugned articles and therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 124-A and 153-B IPC is unsustainable.

18 Per contra, Mrs. Kritika Kamal submitted that neither Section 124- A IPC nor Section 153-B IPC contemplates actual outbreak of violence as a condition precedent for completion of the offence 19 Be it noted that the said provisions are intended to protect the State and the society before anything grievous happens. To say that a person http://www.judis.nic.in  Crl.A. Nos. 306 & 392 of 2012 can be prosecuted only after a seditious act had resulted in violence, would be amounting to locking the stable after the horses have bolted. Under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 and Section 149 Cr.P.C., the police have got a statutory duty to prevent all crimes, offences and public nuisances. At this juncture, it is worth quoting F.T. Giles3, who has has traced the law of treason in England and observed thus:

68 No doubt, the fact that on 25.06.1999, Shah Jahan (A.5) was found distributing the May and June 1999 issues of SIM newsletters outside the mosque, has been satisfactorily established by the prosecution via the evidence of Balasubramaniam (P.W.1), Vijay (P.W.2) and Sundar Rajan (P.W.14), however, from the possession of Shah Jahan (A.5), a letter of SIM addressed to him (A.5) was seized and it has been marked as Ex.P.27. A reading of the said letter (Ex.P.27) shows that Shah Jahan (A.5) was appointed as sales agent-cum-distributor of SIM newsletters and he has been asked to remit the sale proceeds to the office. Concededly, the impugned articles were only part of the SIM newsletters which do contain other articles and write-ups too. Those articles and write-ups relate to ordinary religious topics and other allied news items. It is not the case of the prosecution that Shah Jahan (A.5) was distributing the two impugned articles alone in the form of pamphlets or leaflets. Therefore, this Court is able to infer that though Shah Jahan (A.5) had submitted his resignation vide Ex.P.50 from 10.04.1999, it was not accepted, because, he owed some dues to the SIM office. All these circumstances, when viewed cumulatively, lead this Court to an irresistible conclusion that Shah Jahan (A.5) cannot be mulcted with criminal liability under Section 153-B IPC http://www.judis.nic.in  Crl.A. Nos. 306 & 392 of 2012 and punished. In such perspective of the matter, Shah Jahan (A.5) deserves acquittal under Section 153-B IPC as well.