The two appellants were tried and convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate for an offence under section 292, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to three months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

The second accused in the case is the keeper of a Press called “Sri Andal Press.” This is situated in 175, Lloyds Road, Royapettah. The first accused is the printer and publisher of a book called “Kama Leelai.” The book contains pictures of various postures of sexual intercourse with an explanatory note on the opposite page. It is clear from Ex. P-5 filed in the case that the first accused printed as many as 700 copies of the book. The two ledgers Exs. P-2 and P-3 seized by the police show the number of books sold by the first accused. It is clear therefore from these two documents that the first accused has printed and published these books for the purpose of sale. In fact, this is not seriously disputed, though it is stated that the sale was intended only for adults. Even so these books were undoubtedly printed and published for sale.

The prosecution case is that these are obscene books and therefore fall within the mischief of section 292, Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate after referring to the various decisions cited before him has in a well-considered judgment held that they are obscene. The main question therefore in the appeal is whether these books are obscene within the meaning of the term in section 292, Indian Penal Code.

The word “obscene” is not defined in the Code. The natural and ordinary meaning of the term as given by the dictionaries is this:

Webster’s New International Dictionary:

“Obscene: Offensive to chastity or modesty; expressing or presenting to the mind or view something that delicacy, purity and decency forbid to be expressed; impure, as obscene language, obscene pictures.”

Oxford New English Dictionary:

“Obscene: Offensive to modesty or decency; expressing or suggesting unchaste and lustful ideas; impure, indecent, lewd.”

It is therefore a question of fact in each case whether a particular book falls within the meaning of this word. In this case a perusal of the book will convince anyone that it falls within the meaning given above. The book therefore is obscene and the offence is clearly made out.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that this is a matter which falls more within the scope of Act LVI of 1951 (The Press Objectionable Matter Act, 1951), and a proceeding against the appellant for an offence under section 292, Indian Penal Code, really amounts to an evasion of the provisions of that Act. The provisions in the above Act regarding the publication of books which contains any objectionable matter and which as per section 3(6) of the Act include publications which are grossly indecent or obscene are contained in section 11 and it only deals with the forfeiture of those books to the Government There is nowhere in that Act anything to indicate that section 292, Indian PenalCode, is either abrogated or superseded. In my view the prosecution of the appellants for an offence under section 29a, Indian Penal Code, does not in any way amount to evading the provisions of Act LVI of 1951.

It is next contended that there are several such books which are published and which are under circulation and those publishers have not been prosecuted In support of that, certain exhibits have been filed by the defence advocate. The fact that other publishers of similar publications have not been prosecuted does not mean that the book in question does not fall within the scope of section 292, Indian Penal Code. We are concerned here only with the question whether this. book is an obscene publication within the meaning of the term under section 292, Indian Penal Code. The argument of the learned counsel in my opinion is without force.

It is further contended that by this prosecution the accused must have been deprived of their rights to have the matter decided b