MANZAR SAYEED KHAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 05-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
,-
-< 
/ 
MANZAR SA YEED KHAN 
·A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
APRIL 05, 2007 
[K.G. BALAKRISHN.AN CJ., LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A AND 
B 
D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 153, 153A and 34-Publication of a book-Due 
to some objectionable portion thereof, public unrest-FIR against the author, 
publisher and printer-Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR-Stay of C 
. investigation-Pursuit for compromise-Compromise having failed, vacation 
of stay order ordering further investigation-On appeal, held: In the facts of 
the case, the act of the author, publisher and printer would not attract penal 
consequences under the provisions-The intention to cause disorder or incite 
the people to violence is the sine qua nonfor the offence uls 153A-The book D 
was purely a scholarly pursuit-An FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose 
an offence-FIR-Quashing of 
The Oxford University Press India entered into an agreement with 
Oxford University Press, USA for publishing in India a paper bound book 
entitled "Shivaji" Hindu King in Islamic India" authored by a Professor of E 
Religious studies. The book was published and some copies of the same were 
also sold. The Oxford University Press, India and the appellant (Managing 
Director of the Press) received letter from historians asking the publisher 
and the author to retract objectionable statement complained of and tender an 
apology. The Oxford University Press, India through the appellant expressed 
regrets and informed that instructions had been issued to all its offices in F 
India to immediately withdraw all copies of the book from circulation. 
Thereafter, a mob at Pune blackened the face of Sanskrit Scholar, whose name 
had appeared in the acknowledgement of the book, having helped the author. 
The author sent a fax apologizing for the mistake and stated that it was he 
and not the publisher, who was responsible. A mob also destroyed a huge G 
number of rare manuscripts of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 
(BORI). The author in an Interview expressed deep anguish at the destruction 
of books and manuscripts and explained the reason for writing the book. 
907 
H 
't.· 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent registered an FIR against the author and the appellants 
herein (the Publisher and Printer) u/ss 153, 153A and 34 IPC. Thereafter, 
'--
Public Interest Litigation was filed in High Court demanding action for 
extradition of the author and for coercive action against the publisher. 
Appellant-Publisher moved application for grant of anticipatory bail, wherein 
B 
High Court granted him time to approach concerned court for appropriate 
relief. 
Appellant filed Writ Petitions praying for quashing the investigation 
in the FIR Pursuant to suggestion of compromise whereby the author would 
,, 
withdraw the objectionable portion from the book, an affidavit was filed by the 
c 
author to the same effect. But the State filed an affidavit stating therein that 
the State would investigate as to whether there was an organized attempt to 
destroy the social tranquility or was it a freak occurrence; and that it would 
not be in the larger public interest to drop the charges. High Court vacated 
the interim stay whereby further proceedings in the FIR were stayed. Hence 
the present appeals. 
D 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to 
--
violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A of IP~ and 
the prosecution has to prove primafacie the existence of mens rea on the part 
E of the accused. The intention has to bejudged primarily by the language of 
f' 
the book and the circumstances iu which the book was written and published. 
The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must be read as 
a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving 
the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence ther:! and 
F 
connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning. 
[Para 16) [916-B-C) 
v-
Ramesh Chotalal Dalal v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1988) SC 775 
and Bilal Ahmed Ka/oo v. State of A.P., (1997] 7 SCC 431, relied on. 
1.2. The author of the book has exercised his reason and his own 
G analytical skills before choosing any literature, which he intends to include 
in his book. Even if the appellant-publisher and the appellant-printer or the 
persons whose names are mentioned in the acknowledgement by the autho

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