- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shiv Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P.
Structured Summary of the Opinion: Revision against Conviction under Section 153-A, IPC
Factual and Procedural Background
In 1969 the applicant was the editor of a weekly newspaper titled "Mazdoor Pataka." In the issue dated 21-1-69 he published an article headed "Chunao ka Bahiskar karo, chunao ek Rajnaitik dhokha hai" that urged the public to boycott elections and praised Naxalite activities and Maoist ideology.
The article was alleged to have created disharmony between capitalists and labour as well as between supporters of democratic government and proponents of totalitarian rule. The applicant was therefore tried under Section 153-A, IPC.
The applicant admitted publishing the article but contended that it did not constitute an offence under Section 153-A. The trial magistrate found the prosecution proved and convicted the applicant under Section 153-A, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment.
On appeal, the appellate court held that the trial court had conducted the proceedings improperly because it failed to frame a charge and did not properly examine the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C.; the appellate court allowed the appeal and remanded the case for retrial. The applicant filed the present revision against the appellate court's order dated 30-7-73.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the article published by the applicant falls within clause (a) of Section 153-A, IPC (i.e., whether by words written he promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious, racial or language groups, castes or communities).
- Whether the conviction and remand by the courts below were sustainable in light of the proper scope and content of Section 153-A as it existed in January 1969.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The applicant admitted publication of the article but argued that his conduct did not amount to an offence under Section 153-A, IPC.
- Implicit in the revision is a challenge to the appellate court's remand and the trial court's conviction as being based on an incorrect application of Section 153-A.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution's specific legal arguments beyond the prosecution having established its case at trial and the allegation that the article caused disharmony between groups identified by class and political belief.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The revising court first considered the language of Section 153-A, IPC as it stood in January 1969 and reproduced the provision, noting that for the present case only clause (a) was relevant. Clause (a) penalises promotion or attempted promotion, by words (spoken or written) or by signs or visible representations, of feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious, racial or language groups or castes or communities on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community.
The court examined the impugned article in detail and characterized it as consisting of two parts: a section relating to a resolution passed by the Communist Party of India and a section containing the applicant's personal political views. Those views, the court observed, showed the applicant to be an ardent Naxalite communist who distrusted democratic institutions, advocated the cult of violence and violent revolution (as expounded by Mao), urged the masses to boycott elections and to organise revolutionary class struggles.
The court expressly limited the legal enquiry to whether the article's content fell within the four corners of clause (a) of Section 153-A. It found that nothing in the article promoted feelings of enmity or hatred between different religions, racial or language groups, castes, or communities on the enumerated grounds. Rather, the article conveyed political views directed at class struggle (poor masses versus capitalist class) and political institutions.
The court pointed out that a call to rebel against the capitalist class, while politically provocative, did not amount to promotion of inter-group enmity as contemplated by Section 153-A. On that basis the court concluded that Section 153-A was inapplicable to the facts and that conviction under that section was therefore unsustainable.
The revising court also noted that the courts below had not correctly appreciated the scope and content of Section 153-A as it existed in January 1969. Having reached the substantive conclusion of non-applicability, the revising court allowed the revision and set aside the orders of the courts below.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revision is allowed; the orders passed by the courts below are set aside and the applicant is acquitted of the offence charged under Section 153-A, IPC.
Consequential orders made by the court:
- The applicant's bail bonds are discharged.
- The applicant need not surrender to serve the sentence (no further custodial requirement follows from these orders).
Implications: The decision's direct effect is to reverse the conviction and to acquit the applicant. The opinion does not discuss broader legal or precedential effects beyond its resolution of the present case, and no new legal precedent is articulated in the text beyond its application of the statutory language of Section 153-A to these facts.
Disposition: Revision allowed; accused acquitted; bail bonds discharged.
1. This revision is directed against an order dated 30-7-73 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, in a case under S. 153-A, I.P.C
2. In the year 1969 the applicant was editor of a Weekly newspaper known as “Mazdoor Pataka”. In the issue of this paper dated 21-1-69 the published an article under the heading “Chunao ka Bahiskar karo, chunao ek Rajnaitik dhokha hai”. Through this article he asked the public to boycott the elections and also extolled Naxalite activities and the ideology of Mao.
3. This article of the applicant was said to have created disharmony between the capitalists and the labour class as also between those who believed in democratic form of government and those who believed in totalitarian rule. Accordingly, he was sent up to stand his trial under S. 153-A I.P.C
4. The applicant admitted to have published the article as aforesaid. He however, contended that he has not committed any offence under S. 153-A I.P.C
5. The learned Magistrate found the prosecution case proved against the applicant and he, therefore, convicted him under S. 153-A I.P.C and sentenced him to one year R.I The applicant went up in appeal against his conviction. The appellate Court felt that the trial Court had not conducted the case against the applicant in a proper manner inasmuch as it framed no charge in the case and also did mot examine him properly under S. 342 Cr. P.C Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and remanded the case for retrial. Aggrieved, the applicant has come up in revision against the order passed by the appellate Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and after doing so I am firmly of the mew that this revision must be allowed. I find that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the scope and content of the provisions of S. 153-A I.P.C Section 153-A as it existed in January 1969 read as follows:—
“153-A Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. Whoever—
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious, racial or language groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial or language groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
7. For the purposes of this case only clause (a) of the above section appears to be relevant. A perusal of this clause will show that a person would be guilty under S. 153-A I.P.C only when by words, either spoken or written, he promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious, racial, or language groups or castes or communities on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community. We have to see whether the article written by the applicant brings the case within the four corners of clause (a) or not. The article is on the record of the case and I have perused it very carefully. The article consists of two parts: One part relates to the resolution which the Communist Party of India had passed and the other part carries in its folds his personal views on the political situation of the country as it prevailed at that time. The views expressed by him go to show that he is a hard-boiled Naxalite communist and has no faith in democratic institutions. He believes in the cult of violence and thinks that it is only by violent revolution as preached by Mao that the country can go forward and achieve progress. He, therefore, appealed to the masses to boycott elections and organise revolutionary class struggles. In this case we are not concerned with the question as to what the applicant says is correct or not. All that we have to see is whether the views expressed by him are such which can bring him within the grip of S. 153-A I.P.C In my opinion, S. 153-A cannot apply to the facts of the case because in the impugned article the applicant has not said anything to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different religions, racial or language groups or castes or communities on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community. Whatever views the applicant has expressed in the article, they are purely political in nature. One can, however, feel tempted to say that this article has given a call to the poor masses to rebel against the capitalist class, but such a call to rebel is not punishable under S. 153-A I.P.C It was, therefore, not a case in which the applicant should have been convicted. The order passed by the Court below is not at all sustainable and must, therefore, be set aside.
8. In the result, I allow this revision and set aside the orders passed by the Courts below. The applicant is acquitted of the offence charged. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged and he need not surrender to them.
9. Revision allowed.
Alert