HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE, B. K. BHATTACHARYA
C. T. PRIM - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 474 Of 1956
Decided On : APRIL 29, 1959
OBSCENITY - POSSESSION FOR SALE - MENS REA - SECTION 292 I. P. C. - Mere possession of obscene books for sale is an offence. Mens rea is not dispensed with. It is an inference of law resulting from doing the act. The appellants cannot be heard to say that the firm was used as a dumping ground for foreign publications. They should have seen whether the books received fell within the category of obscene books. There should have been some readers or selectors to verify the nature of the publications received. The appellants had mens rea.
Fact of the Case:
Three books, The Dark Urge, The Shame of Mary Quinn and Find Me in Fire, were seized by the police on the allegation that they were obscene. The appellants, a partner and a salesman of a book shop, were convicted under Sections 292 and 292/109 I. P. C. and sentenced to three months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the three books were obscene within the meaning of Section 292 I. P. C. The court also found that the appellants had mens rea, as they should have seen whether the books received fell within the category of obscene books.
Issues: Whether the three books were obscene.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the three books were obscene within the meaning of Section 292 I. P. C. The court also held that the appellants had mens rea, as they should have seen whether the books received fell within the category of obscene books.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 250/- in default S. I. for 6 weeks in case of appellant No. 1 and of Rs. 100/-only in case of No. 2 and in default S. I. for 3 weeks, under Section 292 I. P. C.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of conviction under Sections 292 and 292/109 I. P. C. and sentence of three months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, R. I. for a further period of three weeks.
( 2 ) THE first appellant, C. T. Prim, is a partner of India Book House, at 1, Lindsay Street, Calcutta, end appellant No. 2 Mohonlal Lalwanj, is the sales-man in the shop.
( 3 ) ON 20-4-54 copies of three books, The Dark Urge, The Shame of Mary Quinn and Find Me in Fire along with three other books were seized by the police on the allegation that they were obscene. The learned Magistrate found that only the three books specified above came within the mischief of Section 292 I. P. G.
( 4 ) IT has been urged inter alia on the side of the appellants that the books are not obscene. Further it is contended that in the absence of mens rea the appellants should not have been convicted. Jn the written statement filed by appellant Prim in the court of the learned Presidency Magistrate it was stated that the books formed part of a routine consignment front overseas, for which no specific orders had been placed and that as thousands of books with about 75 new titles came every month, it was not possible to scrutinise all the books, some of which had passed through regular editions before being issued in cheap editions.
( 5 ) SECTION 292 (a) in its relevant portion reads as follows :"whoever. . . . for purposes of sale. . . . has in his possession any obscene book. . . . shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both. "
( 6 ) MR. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that in the absence of any proof as to mens rea the conviction of the appellants should not be maintained. In support of his contention he has referred to several decisions, including Srinivas Mal v. Emperor, 51 Cal WN 900: (AIR 1947 PC 135), Hariprasada Rao v. The State, and Bholaprosad Lala v. The King, 53 Cal WN 300: (AIR 1949 Cal 348 ). It is beyond question that unless a statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of the crime, no one should be found guilty of an offence under the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind.
Their Lordships observed in the case of Srinivas Mal:"offences which can be held to be committed without a guilty mind are usually of comparatively minor character, and the selling of articles at more than their controlled price under the Defence of India Rules which is punishable with imprisonment for three years, does not come within that limited and exceptional class". The maximum punishment prescribed under Section 292 I. P. C. is imprisonment of three months or fine or both. The offence is not of a minor character, for the liberty of the subject is at stake. The aforesaid analogy of imprisonment for three years, in my opinion, cannot always be the real yardstick for measuring the true, character of an offence. A sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment is not insignificant in that sense. It has been argued on behalf of the State that mere possession of any obscene book for sale is an offence and that by implication mens rea has been ruled out. But possession connotes conscious possession and in that sense it cannot be argued that mens real or guilty mind has been dispensed with. Let us take an extreme case. A blind person may be used as a tool for the purpose of selling obscene books. Unless he knew what type of books he was entrusted with for sale or unless he knew that he was being used as a disseminator of obscene literature, he should not be found guilty. But mere illiteracy on that part of a vendor cannot succeed easily nor would the plea of innocence be easily available, for example, to a man selling obscene post cards in wrapped up packets. Nor would one conversant only with the English, language, possessing for sale obscene literature written, for exa
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.