Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

32. In Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:

In judging the question of obscenity, the Judge in the first place should try to place himself in the position of the author and from the view point of the authority the Judge should try to understand what is it that the author seeks to convey and what the author conveys has any literary and artistic value. The Judge should thereafter place himself in the position of a reader of every age group in whose hands the book is likely to fall and should try to appreciate what kind of possible influence the book is likely to have on the minds of the readers. A Judge, should thereafter apply his judicial mind dispassionately to decide whether the book in question can be said to be obscene within the meaning of Section 292 IPC by an objective assessment of the book as a whole and also of the passage complained of as obscene separately.

34. In order to constitute an offence under Section 292 IPC, the matter complained of as obscene must be so gross and its obscenity is so pronounced that it is likely to deprave and corrupt those minds are open to influence of this sort and into whose hands the book is likely to fall. The concept of obscenity is moulded to a very great extent by the social outlook of the people who are generally expected to read the book which usually differs from country to country depending on the standards of morality of contemporary society in differents countries. When the out look of the Judge may differ from another Judge on the question of obscenity in as much as even in the matter of objective assessment the subjective attitude of the Judge hearing the matter is likely to influence, even though unconsciously, his mind and his decision on the question.

35. It is thus clear that an over-all view of the obscene matter in the setting of the whole work, would of course be necessary but the obscene matter must be considered by itself and separately to find out whether it is so gross and its obscenity so decided that it is likely to corrupt those whose minds are open to influence and this is only possible when the original script is before the Court because, on a bare reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 292, IPC, it is obvious that the matter should be deemed to be obscene (i) if it lascivious (ii) tends to deprave and corrupt persons who were likely to read it.

36. In view of the aforesaid observations, it is thus clear that the matter in dispute was not before the Court in its original form still the Subordinate Court form its opinion and came to the conclusion that the matter was obscene and the petitioners committed offence under Section 292. IPC. I am of the opinion that in the aforesaid circumstances, no opinion can be expressed as to whether the petitioners committed offence as is defined in Section 292 or Section 268, IPC. Moreover, the matter mentioned in the complaint was also subject matter of the writ petition and that writ petition was dismissed holding that the story has been approved by the Film Facilities Officer and various conditions have been imposed on the petitioners for shooting. In these circumstances, this Court observed that the complainant can not be said to an aggrieved person with the contents of the script of the film, "Deceivers". As stated earlier, after the decision of the writ petition no otherwise inference can be drawn by the Criminal Court and in this view of matter, the learned Subordinate Court was not justified in arriving at different conclusion. I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that this Court should not take notice of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition (supra) because this is in an important piece of evidence and demolishes the whole case of the complainant. When such important material is brought to the notice of the Court the same cannot be ignored. Obviously, the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are lacking and as such prosecution is untenable.