SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Mad) 195

RAMASWAMI GOUNDER


Advocates:
C.K. Venkatanarasimham and V. Gopinathan, for Petitioner.
T.A. Bhyme for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

Order

These are connected Criminal Revision Cases filed against the convictions and sentences by the learned Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, in C.C. Nos. 3564 and 3682 of 1956, 3685 of 1956 and 3686 of 1956 respectively under section 292, Indian Penal Code and sentences of fine of Rs. 100 in each case.

The facts of these cases have been fully set out in the judgments of the lower Court and need not be recapitulated.

The short point for determination is whether these publications which constitute the subject-matter of enquiry viz., the Tamil quarterly journal sold very cheaply in street corners and book stalls catering for prurient tastes called (Body and sensation) and which deals from cover to cover with nothing but sex, sexual organs, curiosities of love and of sex life and gratification of normal and abnormal sexual appetites and varieties of sexual intercourse etc., constitute publication of obscene matter falling within the purview of section 292, Indian Penal Code.

The definition of obscenity both in language and in law is vague. The Oed, S. V. ‘Obscene’ says: 'ad L. obscenus, obscoenus adverse, inauspicious, ill-omened; transf. abominable, disgusting, filthy, indecent: o
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top