Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.84 seconds)Section 108 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sital Prasad vs Emperor on 4 November, 1915
9. This case, however, does not depend upon the rule in Sital Prasad's case 34 Ind. Cas. 974 : 43 C. 591 at p. 595 : 20 C.W.N. 199 : 23 C.L.J. 105 : 17 Cr. L.J. 254. The argument for the prosecution has been in this Court that what the appellant has done' is to disseminate the Muhammadan handbill, that this hand-bill was without excuse under Section 153A and that it is enough that the appellant has intentionally disseminated it. In my judgment this argument is unsound. What the appellant was accused of disseminating and what he in fact disseminated was the article in the Forward. There is nothing in Section 108 or anywhere else to justify the distortion of this meaning, his purpose or his act by looking to a part only of the article. He has quoted the hand-bill and objected to it in order to get it stopped. If this is not a mere colourable pretence which cloaks a real intention to incite Muhammadans to violence against Hindus and if the article would not be taken by any reader in that sense, what difference can it make that the few vicious lines of rubbish have been quoted verbatim so as to be pilloried as well as reprehended? The word "disseminate" affords no answer; it would apply equally to a part of the hand-bill as to the whole unless the context altered the meaning of the part.
Mrs. Annie Besant vs The Advocate General Of Madras on 13 May, 1919
4. When we come to the explanation we have what the Judicial Committee has called "a delicate balancing of two important political considerations." "In applying these balancing principles it is inevitable that different minds may come to different results." [Annie Besant v. 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.)].
Section 103 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Srish Chandra Sircar vs Emperor on 9 August, 1918
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. 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.)
1