The Indian Penal Code

The Indian Penal CodeSection - 505Group members:

Archana-More(92)

Divya-Naik (9214)

Vinodhini-Patil (9219)

Sonal-Rathod (9220)Introduction-Section 505Section 505 of the IPC is meant to check and punish the spreading of false and mischievous news intended to upset the public tranquility.It was inserted by the amendment act 4 of 1898. Sub clauses (2) and (3) were put in by Act 35 of 1969.What is section 505?1. Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report, - With intent to cause, or which is likely to cause any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise, disregard or fail in his duty as such; or With intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; orWith intent to incite, or which is likely to incite any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

2. Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.

3. Whoever commits an offence specified in sub section (2) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

Exceptions

It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing, or circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid.

This section can be divided into two parts based on the effect of the news spread:

Where the publication is intended to, or is likely to cause mutiny among soldiers, army men and navy personsWhere the publication is intended to, or is likely to cause commotion amongst the public, or induce someone to commit an offence against the state or public tranquility.

Interpretation of S. 505

The words makes, publishes or circulates in S. 505 have, in the context of S. 505(2), been interpreted as supplementary to each other. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to prevent redundancy with S. 153-A, which also punishes statements that promote ill-will between communities, this phrase could not be interpreted disjunctively, because then a mere statement would invite punishment under both sections. Therefore, S. 505 is interpreted as requiring that the statement should have been made, published and circulated, so as to give effect to the intent of the legislature.

Sub clause (1) What the sub clause says:1. Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report, - With intent to cause, or which is likely to cause any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise, disregard or fail in his duty as such; or With intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; orWith intent to incite, or which is likely to incite any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.Examples of cases -Javed Habib v State.

Javed Habib v The State Reserved on 23.03.2007Date of Decision: July 03, 2007Javed Habib ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anoop George Choudhary, Mrs. June Choudhary, Senior Advocates with Mr. Taiyab Khan and Mr. Syed Ahmad Kashif,Advocates.

versus

The State (NCT of Delhi) ..... Respondent Through:Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate

Javed Habib v The State Javed Habib was the Publisher and Editor of an Urdu Weekly Hazoom in the year 1983. In the Issue dated 18-24th November, 1983 an Article was published under the Title Arrest Muslims Fighting for their Rights- Secret Government Circular. The Article was authored one by Qurban Ali.

Javed Habib v The State The article was considered by the then government as offending and the appellant was tried for offences under Sections 124A IPC and 505 B IPC charging that the Article contained objectionable matter intending to promote feelings of hatred towards the government and was an attempt to excite dissatisfaction towards the then Government established by law in India and it intended to cause fear or alarm in the mind of public and intended to induce a feeling of enmity between Hindus and Muslims and was against the State and public tranquility.

Javed Habib v The State Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 124 A and RI for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 505B of IPC.Habib challenged his conviction on the ground that he had committed no offence because of the publication of the impugned Article in the Weekly of which he was the EditorSaid that article was a fair criticism of the actions of the government and the appellant was merely exercising his Fundamental Right of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and the article contained the opinions regarding actions of the then Prime Minister, heading the government.

Javed Habib v The State The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment observed that: (a) article attempts to promote feelings of hatred in the minds of Muslims. (b) attempts to excite dissatisfaction in the minds of the Muslims towards the government. (c) promoted feelings of enmity between Hindus and Muslims.

Javed Habib v The State Additional Sessions judge observed that: no evidence on record that after publication of this article any revolt took place, but the article was certainly objectionable and it attempted to promote feelings of hatred. Also of the view that the caption of the article and the article as a whole was likely to cause fear in the minds of public and would induce feelings of enmity between Hindus and Muslims.Javed Habib v The State Final judgment: Court has to keep in mind the distinction between criticism of the government and the criticism by a leader of a political party. The criticism of the government is the hallmark of democracy. conviction and the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is set aside.

Sub clause (2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes: - Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(Exception-It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it 5[in good faith and] without any such intent as aforesaid.]

Ghulam Rasool Choari v/s The StateGhulam Rasool was admittedly the Editor, Printer and Publisher, if an Urdu Weekly "Ehsas" having its office at Agra. According to the prosecution case, this paper is widely circulated in Agra, Ferozabad,Mainpuri, Shikohabad and Etawah.In the issue of Ehsas dated the 26th June, 1962 Ghulam Rasool (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) printed and published an editorial article under the caption "Hussain Nam Hai Har Khubiye Hidayat Ka" and circulated the same in the publicThe prosecution alleged that this article brought and did seek to bring into hatred and contempt and excited dissatisfaction towards the Government of the Union of India as established by law. It is also alleged that this article induced or attempted to induce the Muslims of India in general and those in Kashmir in particular to commit offences even by resorting to violence against the State and public tranquillity .In this article the Government of India was described as tyrannical and was alleged to have imposed a tyrannical rule over Kashmir maliciously through corruption, bribery and the bayonets of the Indian Army.

The article, it was claimed, exhorted the Muslims to sacrifice everything and undergo all sufferings and agonies and to draw inspiration from the example of Hussain, the martyr of KarbalaThe article further invoked Allah to bestow upon the Muslims strength, understanding and wisdom to save Kashmiri Muslims from the tyranny and the authoritarian rule of the Indian Government .It was alleged by the prosecution that this article was published during the crucial period when Kashmir was being debated in the Security Council and when the Indian Government sent a note of protest against the talks going on between Pakistan and China regarding the Sino-Pakistan agreement to locate and alum their common border in the occupied areas of Jammu and Kashmir

It is further alleged that the abovementioned article was published and circulated during the critical period of Moharram in order to make a strong appeal to the Muslims and to incite communal fanaticism amongst the Muslims.According to the prosecution case, the intention of the appellant was to bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or excite and attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government of India so that the tranquillity of the State may be disturbed and the people may commit violence and offences against the Indian Government.

The appellant admitted that he was the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Urdu weekly Ehsas. He,however, contended that the paper was not circulated outside Agra city. It was also stated that the article in question published in the Ehsas weekly dated the 26th June, 1962, was the reprint of an article of Faizan, a newspaper of Pakistan and that it was not his editorial. The circulation of the paper was admitted. The appellant explained that he had published the said article in order to criticise it and that it did not express his views. He alleged that he had been implicated on account of personal enmity and that his enemies had conspired with Sri Bhot Rai and had got the complaint filed. He further stated that on the 28th June, 1962, he brought out a special supplement of the Ehsas wherein he referred to the article in question as having been published in the Faizan newspaper to clarify his position. He went on to state that he was a loyal citizen of India and that from 1957 in more than a hundred publications of Ehsas he had affirmed that Kashmir was an indivisible part of India.

In his statement before the committing Magistrate, the appellant stated that the article in question was not an editorial by him and he had published it with the intention of criticising it, but either on account of some failure in the press or some other mistake there had been omissions to refer the article as a reprint from the Faizan. He examined in defence one Dharmvir Sisodiya, a Clerk in the District Information Office, Agra

The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment observed that: After considering the entire evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the conclusion that ;The impugned article had been published deliberately by the appellant and not inadvertently or by mistake. In the result, as already stated, the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra, convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 124A and 505, I. P. C.

It was further held that,On merits, it was contended that the court below was not justified in rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant that it was not the intention of the appellant to publish the offending article and it had been published only on account of a bona fide mistake. It was urged that if we take into account the fact that apart from the particular article for which the appellant had been prosecuted he had during the past many years been publishing articles which established that he was a loyal citizen of India, it must be held that the article had appeared on account of a bona fide mistake and that the necessary mens rea to attract the provision of Sections 124A and 505 I. P. C. was missing.

The court has given sound reasons for holding that the article published in the issue of the 28th June, 1962 was a mere afterthought. It has not been contended that the article read by itself does not attract the provisions of Section 124A and Section 505 I. P. C.The article in question was published on the editorial page and there is no mention anywhere in the publication that it had been taken from the Pakistan newspaper Faizan for the purpose of criticism

Final judgmentIf the appellant had really intended to criticise the article, he could have done so without reproducing the whole article. Even after the article had been published, he could have approached the District Magistrate or the Senior Superintendent of Police or some other person or authority and pointed out that a mistake had been committed inadvertently by him in the publication of the article.As against this he remained silent for two days while the poisonous article was being circulated. After having come to learn of the mistake no attempt seems to have been made by him to have withdrawn the publication from circulation. It was agreed with the finding of the court that the impugned article was published deliberately and intentionally.