JUDGMENT

Raja Azlan Shah J:

The appellant was convicted for an offence under s. 292(a) of the Penal Code viz, publicly exhibiting for sale an obscene book, to wit one copy of Majallah Filem Malaysia, October 1969 issue. He was fined $60 in default two weeks imprisonment. I dismissed the appeal against conviction and intimated that I would give my reasons later. I now proceed to do so.

Majallah Filem Malaysia is an approved publication but an article appearing in it offends against the recognised standards of propriety and is therefore obscene. That is not challenged.

One of the grounds of appeal is that the publication is an approved publication by the Government and therefore not an obscene publication. Counsel's argument is that a publication which contains an obscene article is not obscene because it is an approved publication. I think there is a fallacy in the argument. In my view the word "approved" strong as it is, cannot be read without any qualification. It does not mean extra legem. We boast of being a free democratic country but that does not mean that we are not subject to law. The impugned article is clearly obscene and a publication is an obscene publication even if