1909 (10) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court affirms conviction for distributing seditious article, clarifies liability under Section 124A

Emperor Versus Ganesh Balvant Modak

The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that the distribution of a periodical containing a seditious ... - Issues:1. Conviction under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.2. Grounds for challenging the conviction: lack of publication and seditious nature of the article.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner sought revision of his conviction under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to excite feelings of disaffection towards the Government by selling copies of a periodical containing a seditious article. The challenge was based on two grounds: lack of publication by the petitioner and the contention that the article was not seditious as per the law.2. The High Court refused to interfere in findings of fact by the lower court unless there were exceptional grounds like misstatement of evidence. On the issue of publication, the court noted that the petitioner, being the sole agent for the periodical in India, had taken an active interest in it and had prior knowledge of the article's contents. The court held that the act of selling the copies constituted a tangible act towards the commission of the offense, even if buyers did not read the article.3. The court emphasized that in criminal law, an attempt to commit an offense is punishable, and the mere act of attempting to publish seditious material was sufficient. The court rejected the argument that lack of evidence showing buyers had read the article negated the act of publication, citing the difference between civil actions for libel and criminal prosecutions for attempts to commit offenses.4. The court analyzed the seditious nature of the article titled 'The Etiology of the Bomb in Bengal.' It highlighted the writer's intention to bring the Government into contempt and hatred by portraying it negatively and justifying violent actions against it. The court concluded that the article aimed to excite feelings of disaffection against the Government, meeting the criteria of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.5. In a separate judgment, the second judge concurred with the conviction, emphasizing that the article expressed grievances against the Government in Bengal and justified the use of violence as a response. The judge concluded that both the writer and the distributor (the accused) fell within the ambit of Section 124A, as the accused consciously distributed the seditious publication with full knowledge of its content and intent. The judge found no reason to overturn the lower court's decision.6. Ultimately, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the article was indeed seditious and that both the writer and the distributor were liable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.