Bishan Narain, J. - (1.) Hakim Dina Nath, the editor and publisher of a journal called 'Munawwar', Nand Singh the keeper and Joginder Singh the manager of Guru Nanak Press were prosecuted under Section 292, I. P. C., for the article printed in the two issues of May and June 1953 of that journal. Separate charges were framed for each issue of the journal. Dina Nath admitted that he was the editor and the publisher of this journal and that he was the author of the same but he denied that it was obscene. Nand Singh admitted that he was the keeper of the press but pleaded that the article was printed in his absence while Joginder Singh pleaded that he was working merely as a clerk in the press and that he had no knowledge that the article was obscene. After hearing the evidence produced by the parties the trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the said article was obscene and sentenced Dina Nath to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay Rs. 200/fine on each charge but the sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently. Nand Singh and Joginder Singh were ordered to pay Rs. 75/- and Rs. 25/-, respectively, on each charge. The trial Magistrate confiscated the copies of the journal containing the offending article under Section 521, Criminal P. C. On appeal Dina Nath and Nand Singh were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on the finding that Section 292, I. P. C., had been impliedly repealed by the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act No. 56 of 1951 (hereinafter called the 1951 Act). It was further held that in any case Joginder Singh could not have been prosecuted under the 1951 Act and therefore he was rightly prosecuted under Section 292, I. P. C., but as the prosecution had failed to prove that Joginder Singh had any knowledge of the offending article being obscene his acquittal was ordered. The State has appealed to this Court against the order of acquittal under Section 417, Criminal P. C.
(2.) The point that requires decision in this appeal is whether Section 292, I. P. C., must be deemed to have been impliedly repealed by the 1951 Act so far as the keeper of the press and the publisher are concerned.
(3.) Now it is well established that Courts of law are not in favour of holding that a statute or a section has been repealed by implication by sub-sequent legislation. The implied repeal may, however, be inferred if the special Act read as a whole is intended to be complete in itself. Forewe I L J. approved of the rule stated in -' Rex v. Wright, (1738) 1 Burr 543 (A), in his judgment in -- "Lowe v. Dorling & Son', (1906) 2 KB 772 (B), and observed at page 784 in these words : "The rule was recognized by Lord Mansfield in -- 'Rex v. Wright (A)', and in a note to 2 Hawkin's Pleas of the Crown (1824 ed.), p. 290, is thus stated: "The true rule seems to be this: where the offence was punishable before the statute prescribing a particular method of punisning it, then such particular remedy is cumulative, and does not take away the former remedy; but where the statute only enacts that the doing an act, not punishable before, shall for the future be punishable in such and such a particular manner, 'there it is necessary to pursue such particular method, and not the common law method of indictment'. The same principles apply equally whether the offence is regarded as an invasion of public rights calling for criminal or of private rights calling for civil proceedings." The rules relevant for the purpose of solving this problem are summarised in Maxwell's well-known book "Interpretation of Statutes" and it is not necessary to repeat them in this judgment. For proper decision of the matter it is necessary to find out the object and purpose of the 1951 Act. Now, no person can keep a press and no newspaper can be published unless a declaration specified in Sections 4 and 5, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (Act No. 25 of 1867) is made and subscribed before a Magistrate. The 1951 Act applies mainly to keepers of the press and publishers and its object is to provide against the printing and publication, incitement to crime and other objectionable matter. The objectionable matter is defined in Section 3 which reads : "3. In this Act, the expression 'objectionable matter' means any words, signs or visible representations which are likely to- (i) incite or encourage any person to resort to violence or sabotage for the purpose of overthrowing or undermining the Government established by law in India or in any State thereof or its authority in any area; or (ii) incite or encourage any person to commit murder, sabotage or any offence involving violences or (iii) incite or encourage any person to interfere with the supply and distribution of food or other essential commodities or with essential services; or (iv) seduce any member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of the police forces from his allegiance or his duty, or prejudice the recruiting of persons to serve in any such force or prejudice the discipline of any such force; or (v) promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different sections of the people of India; or which- (vi) are grossly indecent, or are scurrilous or obscene or intended for blackmail." The Explanation II given in this section reads as follows : "In judging whether any matter is objectionable matter under this Act, the effect of the words, signs or visible representationst and not the intention of the keeper of the press or the publisher of the newspaper or news-sheet, as the case may be, shall be taken into account." In the present case we are concerned with Sub-clause (vi) relating to grossly indecent or obscene matter.;