BILAL AHMAD KALOO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 06-08-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BILAL AHMAD KALOO 
v. 
STATE OF A)'IDHRA PRADESH 
AUGUST 6, 1997 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
Section 124(A)-Seditio11-C/1arge framed-No avennents-Hel~To­
tally bereft of the cmcial allegation-Conviction unsustainable. 
Sections 153A, 505(2)-0ffence under-Distinction betwem-Promot-
ing enmity between two groups or communities-Meaning and scope of the 
A 
B 
c 
expressioH-nens rea-Essential ingredients of-Explained. 
D 
Anns Act, 1959: 
, 
Section 25( IB )( a)-Possession of Anns is violation of law-Conviction 
upheld. 
The prosecution case was that the appellant was an active member in 
E 
one militant organisation and he had spread communal hatred among 
muslims and exhorted them to undergo training in armed militancy. 
During ihe period, when series of bomb blasts occured, the police kept a 
cfose watch on the activities of the appellant and his organisation. The 
appellant was arrested on 19.1.1994. After recording his confessional state-
F 
ment, the police seized a revolver and catridges which were produced by 
him. 
On the basis of the evidence adduced, on behalf of _the prosecution, 
the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 124-A IPC and G 
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant was also 
convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Sec-
tions 153(A), 505(2) IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Hence this 
appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
327 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. The decisive ingredient for establishing the offence of 
sedition under section 124-A IPC is the doing of certain acts which would 
bring the Government established by law in India into hatred or contempt. 
In the instant case, the charge framed against the appellant is totally bereft 
of the crucial allegation that appellant did anything with reference to the 
B Government, it is not possible to sustain the conviction under Section 124 
A IPC. [330F-G; 331-D] 
Kedar Nath Singh v, State of Bihar, AIR (1962) SC 955, relied on. 
2.1. Mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 
C 153-A. Mens rea is an equally necessary postulate for the offences under 
Section 505(2) also as could be discerned from the words "with intent to 
create or promote or which is likely to create or promote" as used in that 
sub-section. [333-B-C] 
D 
2.2. The common feature in Section 153(A) and Section 505(2) being 
promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different 
religious or racial or language or regional groups or castes and com-
munities, it is necessary that atleast two such groups or communities 
should be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group 
without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract 
E either of the two sections. In this case, appellant has not done anything 
against any religious, racial or linguistic or regional group or community 
and so he cannot be held guilty of either of the offences under Section 153 
or 505(2) of l.P.C. [334-A-C] 
p 
2.3. The main distinction between the two offences is that while 
publication of the words -or representation is not necessary under the 
former, such publication is sine qua non under Section SOS. The words 
"whoever makes, publishes or circulates" used in the setting of Section 
505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as supplementary to 
each other. If it is construed disjunctively any one who makes a statement 
G falling within the meaning of section 505 would, without publication or 
circulation be liable to conviction. But the same is the effect with section 
153 A also and then that section would have been bad for redundancy. The 
intention of the legislature in providing two different sections on the same 
subject would have been to cover two different fields of similar colour. 
H 
[333-D-EJ 
BILAL AHMAD KALOO v. STATE 
329 
Ba/want Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, (1995] 3 SCC 214 and A 
Sunilakhya Chowdhary v. H.M. Jodwat and Another, AIR (1968) Cal 266, 
relied on. 
3.1. Appellant was in possession of arms and ammunication in 
violation of law and liable to be convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of 
B 
Indian Arms Act. Hence the sentence awarded by the Trial Corut needs no 
;; 
interference. (335-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1391 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.95 of the 1st Additional c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.