Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
13. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Vinod Hansaj Goyal has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel.
14. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, contended that prima facie the FIR discloses the G commission of the offence under Section 153A of IPC against the appellants and the author of the book as the offensive paragraph in the book is the wanton piece of writing and had disturbed the social tranquility of the State. According to. the learned senior counsel, the order of the High Court directing ,. ,.._. further investigation does not suff!:r from any perversity or illegality and the State, as a conscious keeper of law and order, would want to investigate the MANZARSAYEEDKHAN •·.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (LOKESHWAR SINGHPANTA, J.) 915 case whether there was any attempt to disturb any social tranquility in the A State and other parts of the country because of writing the alleged offensive paragraph in the book. He further submitted that everything which is art offence or which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for a civil action is 'illegal' as defined under Section 43 of IPC. Hence, according to learned senior counsel, after the investigation of the case is complete, the B State Government would be in a better position to have an objective assessment of the whole situation and take appropriate action on the subject-matter in controversy and at this initial stage no relief should be granted to the appellants as prayed for.
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective C. 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 153A of IPC. Section 153A of 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: "153A. 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- (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs .or by visible E representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or ….. (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of hannony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or (C) * …. shall .be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
16. Section 153A ofIPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible H 't A 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 inten.tion to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A of IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intentfon 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 c I 53A 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 Chotalal Dalal v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1988) SC D 775, this Court held that TV serial "Tamas" did not depict communal tension and violence and the provisions of Section 153A of IPC would not apply to it. !twas also not prejudicial to the national integration falling under Section 1538 of IPC. Approving the observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Bhagvati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, AIR (1947) Nagpur l, the Court E 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 ofa clapham omnibus". (Emphasis supplied).
18. Again in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., [1997) 7 SCC 431, it is held that the common feature in both the Sections, viz., Sections 153A and 505(2), being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will "between different" religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. Further, it was observed that merely inciting the feeling of one .community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two Sections. ..__
19. Prof. James W. Laine, the author of the book, has exercised his …… reason and his own analytical skills before choosing any literature which he intends to include in his book. Even if the appellant-Manzer Sayeed Khan, MANZAR SAYEED KHAN 1·. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGHPA~TA, J.) 917 a constituted Attorney of the Oxford University Press, India and the appellant- Vinod Hansraj Goyal, Proprietor of the Rashtriya Printing Press, Shahdara, Delhi, or the persons whose names are mentioned in the acknowledgement by the author, have provided information for the purpose, including the said paragraph in the book, it is important and worth observing that the author has mentioned that 130Rl, Pune has been his scholarly home in India and B many people therein helped him for collecting the material. The author has given the names of many persons, who had helped him in one way or the other and enlightened him about the history of the historical hero 'Shivaji'. The author has also mentioned in the book about the International Conference on Maharashtra, etc., which has given him a lot of material for inclusion in his book. As it appears from the records, BORI, Pune was established almost c 90 years back and it has a great tradition of scholarly work. It is very improbable to imagine that any serious and intense scholar will attempt to malign the image of this glorious Institute. The author thought his work to be worth of dedication to his mother Marie Whitwell Lain~, which was purely a scholarly pursuit and without any intention or motive to involve himself in D trouble. It is the sole responsibility of the State to make positive efforts to resolve every possible conflict between any of the communities, castes or religions within the State and try every possible way to establish peace and harmony within the State under every and all circumstances.
20. In State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajanlal, AIR (1992) SC 604, E this Court has observed that an FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose an offence and there is no need for any investigation or recording of any statement.
21. In the result, for the above-said reasons, the respondents shall not proceed against Professor James W. Laine, the author of the book, for offences F under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the IPC being the subject matter of F.I.R. No. 10 of 2004 registered at the Deccan Police Station, Pune.
22. Both the appeals accordingly stand disposed of. KKT. Appeals disposed of. G