SUKANTA HALDER IN CUSTODY Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1951-7-10
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 20,1951

SUKANTA HALDER Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

QUEEN V. HICKLIN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

C T PRIM VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1959-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHARLAL POPATLAL SHAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1954-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT D UDESHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1962-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. DINA NATH [LAWS(P&H)-1955-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: B. CHANDRASEKARAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1957-8-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.P.Mookerjee, J. - (1.)This is a petition for revision on behalf of the editor, printer and publisher of a Bengal Monthly Magazine "Nara Nari" against a conviction by the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.
(2.)The principal question in this case is whether the impugned portions of the three issues of the magazine in question are obscene coming within the mischief of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.)The word "obscene" has not been defined' in the Indian Penal Code. Section 292 of the Code, as it now stands, was introduced into the Code by the Obscene Publications Act (VIII of 1925) with a view to give effect to Article 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of, Traffic in Obscene Publications, signed at Geneva on behalf of the Government of India in 1923. No attempt was made in the International Convention for defining the term "obscene". No successful at-tempt has yet been made by the Courts to define this term.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.