OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANQUILITY.pptx

bns ipc

1. OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANQUILITY CHAPTER XI SECTIONS 189-197 BNS, 2023 Module-III.3.8.

2. MEANING OF OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANQUILITY The offences against public tranquility refer to acts or conduct that disturb the peace, calm, and order in society. These acts or conduct can cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to the public and can result in the disruption of the normal functioning of society . In legal terms, offences against public tranquility are described as crimes that are committed in a public place and that have the potential to create fear or disturbance among the public . Examples of such offences include rioting, unlawful assembly, affray, and disorderly conduct. These offences are considered serious in nature and are subject to legal penalties, including imprisonment and/or fines. The purpose of criminalizing these offences is to ensure the maintenance of public order and peace , and to prevent individuals from engaging in conduct that can cause harm to the community or society as a whole.

3. LAWS DEALING WITH OAPT Offences against public tranquility are offences against not only a single person or property but against society at large.    The provisions contained herein, encompassing  Sections 189 to 197  of the  Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023  (BNS) establish the legal framework governing offences against public tranquility within the territory of India.   These sections, superseding the corresponding provisions of the  Indian Penal Code, 1860 , (IPC) address the pressing need to maintain social order and peaceful coexistence in contemporary society.   The provisions herein define various forms of unlawful assembly, rioting, and related offences, while establishing appropriate penalties for such transgressions.   These sections aim to empower law enforcement agencies with the necessary legal tools to maintain public order while ensuring the protection of citizens' fundamental rights.  Chapter XI of BNS  states the provisions for the offences against Public Tranquility.  Earlier the same was covered under  Chapter VIII of the IPC [Section 141 to Section 160].  

4. TYPES OF OFFENCES (OAPT) Unlawful Assembly , a gathering of five or more people with a common illegal intent Rioting , the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly Affray , a fight between two or more persons in a public place causing public alarm Promoting Enmity between different groups , which damages social harmony Disorderly Conduct , actions that annoy or inconvenience the public

5. Legal Provisions Based on the Offences Against the Public Tranquility under BNS  Section 189 Unlawful Assembly– (1) An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is [Provides Definition of Unlawful Assembly] (a) to overawe by criminal force , or show of criminal force , the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (b) to resist the execution of any law , or of any legal process; or [Farm Laws] (c) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or [Tractor Rally] (d) by means of criminal force , or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (e) by means of criminal force , or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation: An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

6. (2) Whoever , being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly , intentionally joins that assembly , or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly and such member shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months , or with fine , or with both . [Definition of members of unlawful assembly] (3) Whoever joins or continues in an unlawful assembly, knowing that such unlawful assembly has been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. [Continuance of Unlawful Assembly] (4) Whoever , being armed with any deadly weapon , or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death , is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. [Unlawful Assembly + Deadly Weapon ]

7. (5) Whoever knowingly joins or continues in any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace , after such assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. [Assembly of 5 or more people] Explanation: If the assembly is an unlawful assembly within the meaning of sub-section (1), the offender shall be punishable under sub-section (3). (6) Whoever hires or engages, or employs, or promotes, or connives at the hiring, engagement or employment of any person to join or become a member of any unlawful assembly, shall be punishable as a member of such unlawful assembly, and for any offence which may be committed by any such person as a member of such unlawful assembly in pursuance of such hiring, engagement or employment, in the same manner as if he had been a member of such unlawful assembly, or himself had committed such offence. [Employed person] (7) Whoever harbours , receives or assembles, in any house or premises in his occupation or charge, or under his control any persons knowing that such persons have been hired, engaged or employed, or are about to be hired, engaged or employed, to join or become members of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. [Aiding of the UA]

8. Section 190 – Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. Section 191 – Rioting (1) Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly , or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. (Rioting Defined) (2) Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years , or with fine, or with both. (3) Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death , shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

9. Ingredients of Rioting An assembly of five or more persons was involved in the use of force or violence or the use of criminal force. The use of force or violence, or the use of criminal force, was intentional and not accidental . The use of force or violence , or the use of criminal force, was not in self-defence or in defence of others. If the prosecution is able to prove these elements, then the accused can be convicted of the offence of rioting. It is important to note that the use of force or violence, or the use of criminal force, must be directed towards a person or property, and not towards an inanimate object.

10. Manga @ Man Singh vs State Of Uttarkakhand 2013 (7) SCC 629 Facts of the Case The complainant, Sajjad alias Kala (PW 2), a resident of Village Dadoobas under Bhagwanpur Police Station, Haridwar , reported that on 21-11-2001 , his brother Ayyub (PW 3) was attacked while returning from his field. Around 10:00 a.m. , the accused in total 15 persons, armed with guns and country-made pistols, surrounded Sajjad’s house where his family members were present. The accused began abusing the complainant’s family and then opened fire. As a result, Mehroof and Nazir sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot, while Iqrar Ali and several others were seriously injured. The injured were shifted to Roorkee Civil Hospital. Sajjad (PW 2) lodged a written complaint at the police station at about 11:45 a.m. the same day, leading to the registration of a case. Later, a further report was filed, and post-mortem examinations were conducted. The police recovered the weapons, recorded witness statements, and eventually filed the charge sheet . Issue Whether such an assembly can be said to be an Unlawful Assembly? Can they be charged u/s 189 BNS?

11. Application of Law The Trial Court applied Section 141  ‘third ’, {Currently Sec 189(1)(c)} clearly mentions that an assembly of five or more persons is designated as an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or commission of other offence. A literal interpretation, therefore, only means that apart from the offence of mischief and criminal trespass, all other offences would fall within the said clause ‘third’ mentioned in  Section 141 . Appellants Argument The principle ‘ ejusdem generis’ means ‘where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed’ . The learned senior counsel for the appellants, therefore, contended that since the expression “other offence” under  Section 141  ‘third’ has been used along with the offence, mischief or criminal trespass, it can only relate to similar such offences of the same species and not commission of all other offences as in the case on hand, namely, murder or attempt to commit murder .

12. Observations by the Court We fail to appreciate as to how simply because the offences mischief or criminal trespass are used preceding the expression “other offence” in  Section 141  ‘third’, it should be taken that such offence would only relate to a minor offence of mischief or trespass and that the expression “other offence” should be restricted only to that extent. As pointed out by us above, the offence of mischief and trespass could also be as grave as that of an offence of murder, for which the punishment of life imprisonment can be imposed as provided for under  Sections 438 ,  449 ,  450  etc .{Chapter XVII OFAP Mischeif Sec 327(2), 332(a) and 332(b)} Therefore, we straight away hold that the argument of learned senior counsel for the appellants to import the principle of ‘ ejusdem generis’ to  Section 141  ‘third’, cannot be accepted . Appeal was dismissed.

13. RECAP OAPT - The offences against public tranquility refer to acts or conduct that disturb the peace, calm, and order in society. Chap XI Section 189-197 Types of OAPT – Unlawful Assembly, Rioting, Affray, Promoting Enmity between different groups, Disorderly Conduct S. 189- Unlawful Assembly S. 190- One member’s act all will be liable S. 191- Rioting Manga @ Man Singh vs State Of Uttarkakhand 2013 (7) SCC 629

14. Nitya Nand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr . 4 September, 2024 Facts of the case The informant, Sarwan Kumar had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) before the police station where he stated that on 8th September 1992 when he and his father ( Satya Narain ) as well as uncle as per their daily routine came to Ganga ghat for taking bath the incident occurred.   Shree Dev and his four sons Munna Lal , Raju, Nitya Nand and Uchchav @ Pappu armed with kanta , knives and country made pistol confronted Satya Narain .  The accused persons caught hold of Satya Narain and  started assaulting him.   On hearing the cries of his father, the informant, Sarwan Kumar and others came to save him.  It was then that Nitya Nand fired from his country made pistol whereafter all the accused persons made their escape.  When the informant reached the spot Satya Narain (father of informant) had already succumbed to injuries.  On the completion of investigation charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 147 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  The Trial Court  convicted the accused  Shree Dev and also persons Munna Lal , Raju and Uchchav @ Pappu under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.  An appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court, while u pholding the conviction  dismissed the appeal.  Consequently, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the conviction of Allahabad High Court. 

15. Issue Raised Question for consideration is whether the prosecution could establish the culpability of the appellant in the murder of Satya Narain beyond any reasonable doubt? In other words, whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the appellant under  Sections 148  and  302 / 149  IPC beyond any reasonable doubt?

16. Only for reference Section 148 IPC – Rioting, armed with deadly weapons Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 149:- Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

17. OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT The Appellant was charged by virtue of Section 148 and Section 149 of IPC.  Section 149 of IPC lays down that every member of unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of common object.  ( Section 190, BNS) Section 149 of IPC provides that  if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of committing of that offence, is a member of the said assembly; is guilty of that offence.   Thus, if it is a case of murder  each member of unlawful assembly would be guilty of committing the offence  under Section 302 of IPC.  Thus, the question which is required to be answered is whether the accused was a member of unlawful assembly and not whether he actually took part in the crime or not.  The Court held that as was held in   Yunis @ Kariya v. State of M.P. (2002),  no overt act is required to be imputed to a particular person when the charge is under Section 149 of IPC.  The presence of the accused as a part of the unlawful assembly is  sufficient for conviction.   Hence, the Supreme Court held that the trial Court was justified in confirming the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

18. Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar Facts of t he Case Baran Kahar was a tenant of a piece of land in the village Gulabjhari . On 2nd July 1954, around 4 PM, Baran Kahar and his sons, Nanhu and Ramdeni , were working on the land and sowing paddy. At that time, fourteen accused persons came there — Shambhu Nath Singh (Accused No. 1) with a gun , and the others with weapons like bhallas , garasas , and lathis (Deadly Weapon) When Ramdeni and Sukri ( Baran’s son and wife) pleaded with them not to attack, the accused ignored them. Shambhu Nath Singh fired several shots, killing Baran Kahar on the spot and also injuring Nanhu , who later died. Ramdeni and Sukri also sustained injuries. After the accused left, Ramdeni reported the incident at the police station. The police registered a case, investigated, and arrested all fourteen accused. They were charged with offences including rioting, murder, and violations under the Arms Act. At trial, Accused Nos. 1 to 8 and 14 were convicted, while the others were acquitted.

19. Punishment awarded to the accused Shambhu Nath Singh – Sec 302 Accused 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 14 – Sec 326 R/w S. 149 (190 BNS) Issue The case involved fourteen accused individuals charged with various offenses, including murder, rioting, and arms offenses. The central issue was whether members of an unlawful assembly could be held liable for grievous hurt committed by one of its members in pursuit of the assembly's common object.

20. Held by Court (Narrow Approach) Section 149 (190 BNS) propounds a vicarious liability in two contingencies by declaring that: ( i ) if a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offence in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, then every member of such unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence committed by the other members of the unlawful assembly, and ( ii) even in cases where all the members of the unlawful assembly do not share the same common object to commit a particular offence, if they had the knowledge of the fact that some of the other members of the assembly are likely to commit that particular offence in prosecution of the common object .

21. Reasoning Given by Court A conviction for an offence under Section 326 read with  Section 149  of the Indian Penal Code may be recorded against the members of an unlawful assembly, even if it be established that an offence of murder was committed by a member of that assembly. The offence under  Section 326  of the Indian Penal Code is in its relation to the offence of murder a minor offence and the language used in  Section 149  of the Indian Penal Code does not prevent the court from convicting for that minor offence merely because an aggravated offence is committed . The common object of the unlawful assembly was in this case as found by the courts below to cause grievous hurt; and death was caused by one of the members of the assembly. For causing the death, it is found that the other members of the unlawful assembly are not responsible. But the conviction for the offence of causing grievous hurt in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly is maintainable. Conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 14 for offences under Section 326 read with  Section 149  of the Indian Penal Code was therefore properly recorded.

22. Affray Definition- Affray refers to fighting in public so that it disturbs the public order and peace . For affray to take place the presence of two or more persons is a must and their action should negatively affect the tranquility of their surroundings. However, most importantly the effect of their behavior should create disorder in society and for the people .  For example , if one person comes and slaps another person, that would not be counted as an affray, but if that act threatens the public peace, then this act would amount to affray.   Based on the impact of their behavior the guilty could also be convicted under unlawful assembly or rioting. The punishment usually depends upon the impact that their behavior creates in society or the level of threat they pose.  Sunil Kumar Mohamed Alias Mahakhuda Vs. The State of Orissa  2008(I)OLR744 It is important to note that it is not necessary that any offence committed in public is affray, only the offence that has the potential to cause a disturbance in the public tranquility could be termed as affray.

23. Offences of Affray Section 194 BNS :  Affray (1) When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray . [Defines what affray is] (2) Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both . [Punishment for the offence of affray] Classification of Offence – Cognizable Bailable Triable by any Magistrate

24. Fighting by two or more person   The offence of Affray is a fight, a bilateral act, in which two parties actively participate .  It will not amount to an affray when the party who is assaulted submits to the assault without opposing it.  Fighting necessarily implies a sense of competition and struggle for the mastery between two or more persons against one another.  When the members of one party beat the members of the other party and the latter does not retaliate/strive back or make no alternative to retaliate but remain passive, so it can’t be concluded that there was the scene of fighting between the members of one party and the members of the other.  It involves an actual fight between the parties to constitute this offence, and mere quarrelling and abusing each other would not result in an offence of affray.    Fighting in public place   The offence must be committed in a public place and in the presence of the public; when there is no individual present then there can be no breach of the public peace.  Disturbance of public peace   Offence of affray, there must be not only fighting between one or more than one party but also it may cause disturbance to the public peace.  The offence protects the public in a public place , so in order to put someone under this offence, disturbance in public peace must be destroyed. 

25. In  Gopal Singh vs. State of MP , the court stated that the presence of public anxiety or fear confirms affray. In   Baldeo Prasad vs. State of UP , the court held that even short-term fights in public qualify . Courts have clarified: Affray does not require premeditation. Even mutual scuffles qualify if in public view. Intent is secondary to public disturbance. Such judicial interpretations strengthen the utility of section 194 in controlling spontaneous violence and maintaining social harmony.

26. Jagannath Shah vs State Of Bihar  1988(36)BLJR301 Facts of the Case T he two brothers who were quarreling and hurling abuses at each other on a town’s public road had a counterattack. There was a mass of people congregating around them. Although there was a hurry and even some traffic disruption, there was no physical altercation between them.  Issue Whether the Offence of affray is committed ? Held The Court found and noted that there was no physical altercation involved in the behaviour ; rather, it was purely verbal. As a result, there was no crime of affray committed.

27. Q1. What is the maximum fine under Section 194(2) BNS? A. ₹500 B. ₹1,000 C. ₹100 D. ₹ 2,000 Q2. Which of the following is a key requirement to constitute an affray under Section 194 BNS? A. Use of weapons B. Presence of one person only C. Public place disturbance by a fight D. Verbal abuse only Q3. Under Section 194 BNS, the offence is: A. Non- bailable B. Cognizable C. Bailable and non-cognizable D. Triable by Sessions Court Q4. What is the minimum number of persons required to commit affray under Section 194 BNS? A. One B. Two C. Three D. Five

28. State vs . Meer Singh on 21 June, 2012 Facts of the Case In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 13.1.2006 at about 10.15 pm at O­ I/107, Madangir , New Delhi, the accused Meer Singh was found fighting with the co­accused Rajinder and therefore, committed the offence of affray as punishable  u/s 159  IPC. (194 BNS) After completing the formalities, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and the accused Mir Singh was stated the offence committed by him by framing a notice under  section 160  IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

29. Issue The trial started on framing of charge and to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses. Petitioner’s Argument As per the prosecution's case on 13.1.2006 at about 10.15 pm at O­I/107, Madangir , New Delhi, accused Meer Singh along with co ­ accused Rajinder @ Golu, S/o Sh. Arjun Lal committed affray at the public place and disturbed the public peace and thereby committed an offence  u/s 160  IPC. Respondent’s Argument counsel for accused Meer Singh has raised two-fold arguments in this case; ( i ) that the whole case is based on the testimony of the police 3/7 FIR no. 25/06 witnesses, (ii) that the accused has already proved that he was beaten by three persons and he has also lodged a complaint against them but no action was taken and therefore, he is the victim of the offence and not the offender.

30. Court’s Reasoning The testimony of the police witness namely PW 1 Ct. Brij Bhushan and investigating officer HC Jarnail Singh is categorical to the effect that both the accused persons Meer Singh and Rajinder were found fighting at the aforesaid spot. Both of them has injured each other and when on receiving of DD no.39 at police post Madangir , Ct. Brij Bhushan and HC Jarnail Singh went to the spot they themselves saw the incident of affray and categorically deposed in the Court as above. The overall testimony discussed above clearly shows that there was a fight in the public place between both the accused persons . Without going into who provoked by whom and what was the cause or motive behind the fighting,  section 159  IPC defines offence of affray and it only punishes the offence of fighting. As far as the disturbance of public peace is concerned, although public witness to this effect has not been examined but the testimony of police witnesses i.e PW 1 is categorical to that effect when he deposed that the neighbours were objecting to the said noise and fighting.

31. Continue… It is the admitted case of both the accused persons that they were fighting in a gali and definitely in such a fight the natural corollary of public peace always suffers . The making of PCR call itself suggests that matter was grave and therefore, in the overall  State Vs. Meer Singh  5/7 FIR no. 25/06 evidence led and the facts established, it appears that both the accused persons have committed the offence of affray as defined  u/s 159  IPC. The accused Rajinder @ Golu had already pleaded guilty at the very beginning of the trial in the year 2006 and he has already been convicted in this case.

32. Section 195 - Assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing riot, etc. (1) Whoever assaults or obstructs any public servant or uses criminal force on any public servant in the discharge of his duty in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years , or with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees , or with both . (Clear Case of assault – Grave offence) (2) Whoever threatens to assault or attempts to obstruct any public servant or threaten or attempts to use criminal force to any public servant in the discharge of his duty in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year , or with fine , or with both . (Threat to assault – Lesser degree of offence)

33. S. 196 - Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. ( 1)Whoever, (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise , promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity , hatred or ill-will between different religious, racials , language or regional groups or castes or communities; or (First type of offence u/s 196) (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility; or (Second type of offence u/s 196)

34. (c) organises any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both . (Third type of offence u/s 196) (2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) 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 .

35. “ Sach bolega taan milu 295 Je karega tarakki putt hate milugi ”

36. Section 298 - Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class . Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. BNSS Classification Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. Cognizable Non- Bailable Triable by Any Magistrate .

37. Section 299 - Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. BNSS Classification Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. Cognizable Non- bailable Triable by Any Magistrate.

38. Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The Union of India and Ors . (1971) Facts of the case In this case, the author and publisher of a controversial book called “Gandhi- hatya Ani Mee ” (Gandhi-assassination And I) challenged an order of the Delhi administration. The order was regarding the forfeiture of this book as per Section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC ). After that, the Constitutionality of both Section 99A of the CrPC and Section 153 of the IPC was challenged. Issue in the case Whether Section 99A of CrPC and Section 153A of IPC are constitutional?

39. Judgement of the case Upholding the constitutionality of Section 99A CrPC and 153A IPC, it was held that to charge someone under Section 153A IPC, “one cannot rely on stray, isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning” . The court further stated that ‘ adherence to the strict path of history is not by itself a complete defence to a charge under Section 153A’. Also, ‘greater the truth, greater the impact of the writing on the minds of its readers, if the writing is otherwise calculated to produce mischief’.

40. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957) Facts of the case In this case, Ramji Lal Modi was the editor, printer, and publisher of a monthly magazine called as ‘ Gaurakshak ’ which was devoted to cow protection. In 1952, a controversial article was published containing matter regarding the Muslim community that was alleged to spread hatred, enmity, and disharmony. This became the ground for the prosecution of the petitioner. He was charged under Section 153A and Section 295A of the IPC. The Sessions Court of Kanpur acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 153A but convicted him under Section 295A. Upon appeal, Allahabad High Court also upheld the ruling of Sessions Court. Afterwards, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 295A in the Apex Court. The grounds for challenging Section 295A IPC were that the impugned Section infringed his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and was not a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the right in the interests of public order under clause (2) of Article 19, which alone could have afforded a justification for it. Issues in the case The issue in this case pertained to the constitutionality of Section 295-A IPC.