Knowing circulation may constitute publication, and a writing is seditious if it incites hatred or disaffection against Government.

Knowing circulation of an offending periodical can amount to publication for criminal liability where the accused received an advance copy, sought prior knowledge of its contents, and sold copies with awareness of the article's character; actual proof that buyers read it was unnecessary, so publication was established. Read as a whole and with surrounding circumstances, the article portrayed the Government as oppressive, approved violence as a response, and was intended to create hatred, contempt and disaffection; it was therefore seditious within Section 124A IPC. The revisional challenge failed, and the conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale of copies of the periodical amounted to publication of the impugned article for the purposes of criminal liability. (ii) Whether the article was seditious within the meaning of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether the sale of copies of the periodical amounted to publication of the impugned article for the purposes of criminal liability.

Analysis: The accused had received an advance copy, had earlier sought it for prior knowledge of the contents, was connected with the periodical's circulation, and sold copies after being in a position to know the article's character. In criminal law, an attempt is complete when there is an external act showing progress towards the offence, and the fact that the article may not actually have been read by buyers did not prevent liability where the accused knowingly circulated it.

Conclusion: The sale of the copies constituted publication and an actionable attempt to disseminate the offending matter.

Issue (ii): Whether the article was seditious within the meaning of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The article, read as a whole and in the light of surrounding circumstances, portrayed the Government as oppressive, mean, and demoralising, treated violence as a lawful response, and was intended to create hatred and contempt against the Government and to excite disaffection. The question of intention was treated as one of fact, and the article's language and innuendoes supported the inference of a seditious purpose.

Conclusion: The article was seditious within the meaning of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the conviction and sentence were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In criminal law, knowing circulation of material may amount to publication even if no actual reader is proved, and a writing is seditious when its natural and intended effect is to bring the Government into hatred or contempt and to excite disaffection.

---