JUDGMENT
Kirpal, J.
1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of respondent Shri Kanth Shastri who has been charged with committing an offence under S. 153A, Penal Code.
2. It appears that some incident occurred on 29th and 30th December 1971 in Telicheri city of Kerala. The respondent being a printer, publisher and editor of the monthly magazine “Lokalok” in Hindi printed and published an editorial in that magazine in the issue of January 1972. The charge against the respondent was that this editorial promoted feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindu and Muslim citizens of India which was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between groups of Hindu-Muslim citizens of India and disturbed or was likely to disturb public tranquillity.
3. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge.
4. The prosecution, in support of its allegation, examined as many as seven witnesses. The respondent in his statement under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code admitted that he was a publisher, printer and editor of the said magazine and the issue of January 1972 was also published under his editorial ship and direction. The respondent, however, denied that the said editorial had any effect to create hatred between various citizens of India belonging to Hindu and Muslim community. According to him the article was only an innocent expression of opinion and advice to general public and it went in line with many articles published those days as Pakistan invasion on India had just come to an end.
5. The trial court examined the aforesaid writing and come to the conclusion that the editorial did not contain any exportation to raise Hindu against Muslims. He found that there was no evidence that the writing promoted disharmony. With regard to the question whether it attempted to promote disharmony, the trial court came to the conclusion that what was of importance was the intention of the writer. It was held that the essence of an offence under S. 153A, Penal Code was malicious intention and the intention had to be judged from the article as a whole. By looking at the said article, the trial court came to the conclusion that the offence under S. 153A, Penal Code had not been made out and the accused was accordingly acquitted.
6. Against the aforesaid acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the State.
7. On behalf of the State it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said article was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious groups and was likely to disturb public tranquillity. It is also contended that the said article was likely to promote disharmony amongst the Hindu-Muslim citizens of India.
8. The trial Court examined the evidence and also went through the article and came to the conclusion that the article had to be read as a whole and in its opinion even though there may be some objectionable passages in the said article but on the whole the said article was not one to incite any religious feelings and there was no malicious intention on the part of the author of the article. After a period of 14 years, we do not see any compelling circumstance which should make us disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court who had the benefit of recording the evidence and whose decision cannot be said to be perverse. It is possible, by reading the article as a whole, to come to the conclusion that the article was only meant to be by way of an advice and there was no malicious intention on the part of the author. S. 153A, Penal Code uses the expression “promotes or attempts to promote”. This clearly shows that there has to be means read on the part of the accused to commit the offence of promoting disharmony amongst different religions. This means read or malicious intention can be proved either by evidence or, at times, by writing itself. The writing can be of such a nature that it may become apparent to the court that any reasonable man or an average man in the street is likely to get a feeling of enmity or hatred. If such an article is printed and published, then it can be presumed that malicious intent was there thereby inviting the provisions of S. 153A. Penal Code. In the present case, however, the said article has not been read in that manner by the trial court and we would not, at this stage, like to interfere with the decision of the trial Court.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
10. Appeal dismissed.