Obscenity and conscious possession for sale sustained liability where lurid sexual content lacked any sufficient justification.

A publication is obscene if, taken as a whole, it is likely to deprave and corrupt the minds of the ordinary reader, including young persons; the test is not limited to exceptionally sensitive readers. Applying that standard, the Court found repeated and lurid sexual descriptions in the three books, with no sufficient artistic or sociological justification, and held them obscene. On mens rea, the Court held that conscious possession for sale was required and that the surrounding circumstances negated any claim of innocence, so absence of mens rea did not defeat liability. The conviction was sustained, though the sentence was reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the three books were obscene within the meaning of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and whether absence of mens rea could defeat the conviction.

Analysis: The governing test of obscenity was applied with reference to whether the publication had a tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds were open to such influences. The standard was not confined to exceptionally sensitive readers, and the effect on the ordinary member of the public, including young persons, was relevant. On the facts, the Court found that each of the books contained repeated and lurid descriptions of sexual conduct, with no sufficient artistic or sociological justification, and that the passages were likely to appeal to prurient interest and corrupt the minds of average readers. On mens rea, the Court held that possession for sale had to be conscious possession and that the surrounding circumstances showed that the appellants could not be treated as innocent receptacles of the obscene publications.

Conclusion: The books were obscene, mens rea was not absent, and the conviction was sustained, though the sentence was reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: A publication is obscene if, taken as a whole, it is likely to deprave and corrupt the minds of the ordinary reader, and conscious possession for sale of such a publication attracts liability where the surrounding circumstances negate innocence.

---