1. Appeals against High Court order vacating stay of investigation in FIR for offences under Sections 153, 153A, 34 IPC arising from a book publication. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2007 Supreme(SC) 459
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA & D. K. JAIN, JJ.
Manzar Sayeed Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr.- Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2373 of 2004)
With
Vinod Hansraj Goyal- Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2512 of 2004)
Decided on : 05.04.2007
Advocates appeared
Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Senior Advocate, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Ms. Rani Mishra and Mrs. Sunita Dwivedi, Advocates with him for the Appellant Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General for India, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate, Mr. S.S. Shinde, Mr. A.P. Mayee, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and Mr. H. Baruah (for Ms. Sushma Suri), Advocates with them for the Respondents
Conviction under Section 153A IPC requires proof of mens rea—the intention to promote enmity or hatred between different groups. The work must be judged as a whole based on the standards of a reasonable, strong-minded person, not based on isolated passages or hypersensitive interpretations.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 153, 153A and 34 - Promoting enmity between different groups - Mens rea - Requirement for conviction - The gist of the offence under Section 153A is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence, and the prosecution must prove the existence of mens rea prima facie. Such intention must be judged primarily by the language of the work as a whole and the circumstances in which it was written and published. Reliance cannot be placed on strongly worded and isolated passages; a work must be read as a whole rather than connecting isolated sentences through inferential reasoning. (Para 9)
(B) Standard of Interpretation - The effect of words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds or those who perceive danger in every hostile point of view. The applicable standard is that of the ordinary reasonable man. (Para 10)
(C) Application of Section 153A - For the application of Section 153A, it is necessary that at least two groups, communities, or classes be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to another community or group cannot attract the provision. (Para 11)
(D) Quashing of FIR - An FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose an offence, in which case there is no need for further investigation or recording of statements. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, acting as the publisher and printer of a scholarly book, were named in an FIR registered under sections of the law relating to promoting enmity between different groups after a specific passage in the book was deemed objectionable. Following objections, the publisher withdrew the book from circulation and the author issued an apology. However, after incidents of public unrest, the state registered a criminal case. The High Court vacated an interim stay on the investigation, leading the appellants to challenge the order before the apex court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the book was a scholarly pursuit without any intention or motive to incite trouble. Given that the work was based on analytical skills and scholarly research, and the publisher had acted promptly to withdraw the book upon notice of objections, the essential element of mens rea was absent.
Issues: Whether the complained-of paragraph in the book attracted the penal consequences envisaged in Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 153A IPC requires a specific intention to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity. This intention must be assessed by reading the work as a whole and applying the standard of a reasonable, strong-minded person. Since the work was a scholarly endeavor and lacked the intention to incite violence or promote hatred between two or more groups, the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence.
Result: The respondents shall not proceed against the author for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the IPC and the appeals stand disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued no mens rea and no offence under Sections 153, 153A; State argued prima facie offence and need for investigation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Court held that Section 153A requires intention to promote enmity; book must be read as a whole, not isolated passages. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. For Section 153A, mens rea to promote enmity is essential; writing must be judged by reasonable man standard. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 )
5. Appeals disposed of; author shall not be proceeded against for offences under Sections 153, 153A, 34 IPC. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. What is the essential ingredient for an offence under Section 153A IPC?
Intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different groups; mens rea is sine qua non of the offence. (Para 9 )
7. How should the alleged offending material be judged under Section 153A?
The material must be read as a whole; isolated passages cannot be relied upon. Effect judged from standard of reasonable, strong-minded men. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. Is it necessary that at least two groups or communities be involved for Section 153A?
Yes, inciting feeling of one community without reference to another cannot attract Section 153A or 505(2) IPC. (Para 11 )
9. Can an FIR be quashed if it does not disclose an offence?
Yes, there is no need for any investigation or recording of any statement if FIR does not disclose an offence. (Para 13 )
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Manzar Sayeed Khan and Vindd Hansraj Goyal have filed these two appeals against the common order dated 06.05.2004 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.280 of 2004 and 370 of 2004. By the impugned order, the High Court vacated the interim order granted on 23.02.2004 and directed the Crime Branch of the State of Maharashtra to complete the investigation in FIR No.10 of 2004 registered at the Deccan Police Station, Pune, against the appellants and author of the book titled "Shivaji Hindu King in Islamic India" under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short IPC].
3. The brief facts in both these appeals are practically identical.
3.1 Manzar Sayeed Khan, appellant herein, is a constituted Attorney of the Oxford University Press India, having been appointed on 21.06.2001 for a period of three years or for so long as he is employed as the Managing Director of the Oxford University Press India, which is a department of the University of Oxford, a legal entity with charitable status. It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship and education, by publishing worldwide in Oxford, New York, Auckland, Bangkok, Buenos Aires, Cape Town; Chennai, Dar-es-Salaam, Delhi, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Karachi, Kolkata, Kuala Lumpur, Madrid, Melbourne, Mexico City, Mumbai, Nairobi, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, etc. The Oxford University Press India entered into an agreement for five years with the Oxford University Press, USA, for publishing in India a paper bound book entitled "Shivaji : Hindu King in Islamic India" authored by Prof. James W. Laine, a Professor of Religious Studies, Macalester College, USA, on 28.05.2003. The said book was originally published by the Oxford University Press, USA. As per the terms of the agreement, the Oxford University Press, India agreed to reprint the book without any changes or deletions. In all, 803 copies of the book were published, i.e., 488 copies in June and 315 copies in October 2003. The book was released in July 2003. 215 copies had been sold in July, 25 copies in August, 29 copies in September, 52 copies in October and 19 copies in November from the records available from the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka.
3.2 The Oxford University Press, India and the appellants had received a letter on 10.11.2003 from four Historians whereby the publisher and the author had been asked to retract the objectionable statement complained .of and tender an apology. The Oxford University Press, India through appellant Manzar Sayeed Khan, expressed regrets for the said statement and informed the objectors that instructions had been issued to all its offices in India to immediately withdraw all copies of the book from circulation. The copies of the letters dated 10.11.2003 and 21.11.2003 are annexed with the appeals and marked as Annexure P-3(Colly.). It is the case of the appellants that sometime after withdrawal of the book from circulation, the appellants learnt that a mob at Pune had blackened the face of a Sanskrit Scholar, Shri Shashikant Bahulkar whose name appeared in the acknowledgement of the book, having helped the author Prof. James W. Laine, by providing him with some information during his visit to Pune. This incident was widely reported in the press. Prof. James W. Laine was pained by the unforeseen incident. On 28.12.2003, he sent a fax apologizing for the mistake, if any, committed in writing the passage and further stated that he only was responsible for the said statement written in the book, and the publisher was not at all responsible for the same. On 05.01.2004, a mob of 100 to 125 persons allegedly belonging to the Shambhaji Brigade ransacked the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI), Pune, and destroyed 18,000 books and 30,000 rare manuscripts. This incident was also widely reported in the press.
3.3 Prof. James W. Laine had g
