C.V. RAJAGOPALACHARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by one Mr. C. V. Rajagopalachari who has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 18, Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 for having published an unauthorised 'news -sheet' entitled 'Save the country from the totalitarianism', which is a pamphlet or tract of four pages without any cover. Copies of this pamphlet or news -sheet, he sent to the Prime Minister of India, the President, Indian National Congress, and also, according to him, to every Minister o the Congress Government in Madras and every prominent Congressman, besides public men and institutions of standing; and also sent a copy to the 'Baltimore Sun', in the United States of America. He enclosed copies of a prior pamphlet

(2.) THE main point which falls to be determined when considering this question is whether the matters contained in this document will fall within the purview of Section 4 (1) (d) in which case, the conviction will be correct, as this pamphlet is 'a document other than a newspaper' within the meaning of Section 4 (1), whatever the case be with regard to the sentence. Mr. Rajagopalachari contended that his intention and motive in publishing this document was not to bring into hatred or contempt the Government, or the Congress, or the administration, or any class or section of His Majesty's subjects, or to excite disaffection towards the Congress or the Government or anybody else, but only to make Congressmen think deeply over the principles and policies of Mahatma Gandhi and see that the Congress organization is brought back to a state of strength and sacrifice as in its heydays. His contention is that, to achieve this object, he had to speak out whatever he felt, without fear or favour, and that the fact that he sent copies of the pamphlet to the Congress President and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who wrote a letter thanking him for it, and to other prominent Congressmen, shows that his motive in writing and distributing it was the same motive as had actuated Mahatma Gandhi and is actuating some other Congress leaders in Madras Province and elsewhere to express strong and fearless criticism of the Congress and the Government. He contended that he was a staunch and veteran congressman and the Secretary of the Civil Liberties Union and a back -bencher democrat. He argued that an intention to bring the Government into hatred or contempt was essential, as in the case of sedition, and relied on the ruling in Public Prosecutor v. Subba Mudaliar, 1937 M. W. N. 176 and Niharendu Dutt v. Emperor, 1942 F. L. J. 47 : A. I. R. 1942 F. C. 22 for this contention, and vehemently urged that the proper thing to do, if the prosecution was confident of its case that the contents of this pamphlet came under Section 4 (1) (d), was to prosecute him for sedition, under Section 124A, Penal Code, and prove it to the hilt, in which event he would have produced books, documents and witnesses galore and proved the case to be misconceived and unsustainable. The learned Crown Prosecutor contends on the other hand, that there is no sedition charge in this case and that, therefore, there is no need to go into the question of the sustainability of a sedition charge based on the contents of this pamphlet, and that the main question here, since the intention to write and publish the pamphlet is proved, is whether the matters in this document tend directly or indirectly to bring the Government, etc., into hatred or contempt, whatever the intention in writing and publishing those matters. I agree.

(3.) AFTER deep consideration, I agree with the learned Crown Prosecutor's view that the intention or motive in publishing the matters in such pamphlets is immaterial in the case of such prosecutions under Section 18, provided the matter is published intentionally and tends directly or indirectly to bring into hatred or contempt the Government of the day. Sedition is a major offence, and has to be proved strictly; and there are well known decisions like Niharendu Dutt v. Emperor, 1942 P. L. J. 47 : A. I. R. 1942 F. C. 22, governing the question as to what constitutes 'sedition,' and I may freely admit that, if this were a prosecution for sedition, the evidence on record may be inadequate to convict the appellant. But the matter before me now is different. In my opinion, in prosecutions under Section 18, Press (Emergency Powers) Act, the prosecution need only prove that a document other than a newspaper has been intentionally made and published and that it contains either published news or comments on published news or any matter described in Sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the Act without obtaining the necessary permission of the Magistrate under Section 16. Sub -section (1) (d) of Section 4 does not mention anything about the intention or motive in publishing such words etc., but simply says that the document in question should contain words, signs or visible representations which tend directly or indirectly to bring into hatred or contempt the government established by law, etc. In other words, it is the effect of the contents of the document, the objective aspect, that is covered by Section 4 (1) (d) and not the intention or motive or the subjective aspect, or the mens rea in uttering or publishing those words, which would be material for a prosecution for sedition under Section 121 -A, Penal Code. It is significant that Section 4 (1) (d) omits all the provisos found in Section 124A.