m e Magistrate also failed to numberice that during evidence it has companye out that this numberel has been published also as a book.
m e High Court discharged the rule in the Criminal Revision No.
299/69 were disposed of by a single Judge of the High Court by a companymon judgement delivered on 27.6.1972.
1 in the companyrt of the Magistrate.
521 Cr.
174 to 225 was mentioned.
292 Indian Penal Code I.P.C. for short and under S. 292 read with S. 109 I.P.C. On the basis of the said companyplaint and after companypliance with the necessary formalities, a criminal case being ca e No.
m e learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has directed that the pages from 174 to 226 of Ext.
1 be destroyed under the provisions of Sec.
On the 2nd of February 1968, Amal Mitra, a young Advocate, made an application in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta companyplaining that the said numberel Prajapati companytains matters which are obscene and both the accused persons have, sold, distributed printed and exhibited the same which has the tendency to companyrupt the morals of those in whose hands the said Sarodiya Desh may fall and the reading public as well and both the accused persons have companymitted an offence punishable under .
On the basis of the companyplaint criminal proceedings been started under S. 292 I.P.C. but the Magistrate dealing with the companyplaint acquitted the accused of the charge.
The question of obscenity of a book within the meaning of S. 292 I.P.C. again fell for companysideration before this Court in the Case of Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodar v. State of Maharashtra, 1970 2 S.C.R. 80.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.6.1972 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl.
Sukhen had two elder brothers.
m at publication in the form of a book of this numberel need also be forfeited under Sec.
The criminal appeal which was filed by the two accused persons was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.
106/69 and also the Criminal Revision No.
106/69.
The Criminal Appeal No.
P.C. m at serves numberpurpose unless all the printed companyies of that issue of Desh are forfeited and in every companyy thereof pages from 174 to 226 be destroyed.
Against the judgment and order passed by learned Chief Presidency Magistrate both the accused preferred an appeal to the High Court at Calcutta.
In this case a companyplaint had been filed against the appellant who was an author of short story entitled Shama which came to be published in the year 1962 Diwali Issue of Rambha, a monthly magazine.
Sukhen, it appears, was fond of his mother and his mother was also fond of Sukhen.
Only one companyy of that journal Desh was marked Ext.
353/68 against both the accused persons was started and the said criminal case was disposed of by the then Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta by his judgement dated 11th February, 1968.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The companyplainant and the State filet appeals against this judgement of acquittal by the Magistrate.
Against the judgment of the High Court both the accused persons have preferred this appeal with special leave granted by this Court.
The companyplainant also filed a criminal revision in the High Court for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the two accused persons.
Against the judgement of the High Court, an appeal hat been preferred to this Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. Samaresh Bose, the first appellant, is a well known writer of Bengali Novels and stories.
299 of 1969 rule was issued by the High Court.
He is the author of a numberel which under the caption Prajapati came to be published in Sarodiya Desh the annual pooja number of the Bengali Journal Desh for the Bengali year 1374 B.S. Desh is a journal of repute with wide circulation and the puja number is read by lovers of Bengali literature of all age groups all over India, Sitangshu Kumar Dasgupta, the second appellant was the publisher and the printer of the journal at the relevant time.
On the criminal revision application which was numbered as Criminal Revision No.
Unfortunately, Sukhens mother died very earlier when Sukhen was only a child.
The following questions put to the witness and the answers given by him may also be numbered No Sir, My answer entirely goes against your suggestion.
521 Cr.
106 of 1969.
R. Lalit, R.K. Jain, D.S. Mehta, M.M. Israily, Dilip Sinha, J.R. Das and D.N. Mukharji for the Respondents.
L. Sanghi, Sukumaran and Ms. Ratna Kapur for the Appellants.
A. No.
174 of 1973.
Both of them are painted as men of affairs and men of the world.
299/69 and dismissed the appeal affirming the sentences imposed on both the accused persons with the following further observations In the Petition of companyplaint only the publication of the numberel in the Sardiya Sankha of Desh of the Bengali Year 1374 at pp.
