Site icon Raw Law

Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings under Section 153A IPC for News Publication on Ground of No Mens Rea, Lack of Sanction, and Mechanical Cognizance by Magistrate “The graver the offence, the greater should be the care taken so that the liberty of citizen is not lightly interfered with.”

no mens rea
Share this article

Court’s Decision

The Calcutta High Court allowed the revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code against the editor, printer, and publisher of a reputed English daily. The Court held that the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law as there was no prior sanction from the Government under Section 196 CrPC, no prima facie evidence of promoting enmity between communities, and no judicial application of mind by the Magistrate while taking cognizance.


Facts

The petitioners, comprising the editor, printer, and publisher of a well-known English newspaper, were implicated in a case initiated under Section 153A IPC, arising from a complaint filed on 19 March 2012. The complaint alleged that a photograph published in the “Twit of the Day” column in the newspaper hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims and was intended to promote enmity. The alleged image had been originally shared online by a third party.

Following the complaint, Domjur Police Station registered a case and filed a charge sheet under Section 153A IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance on 14 January 2015 and directed the issuance of process against the petitioners, who were not named in the FIR. The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings on various legal and factual grounds.


Issues

  1. Whether the ingredients of Section 153A IPC were made out from the complaint and charge sheet.
  2. Whether the absence of prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC rendered the cognizance illegal.
  3. Whether the Magistrate applied judicial mind before taking cognizance.
  4. Whether the proceedings amount to abuse of process of court.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued that the publication was a third-party reproduction from the internet, not an original creation by the newspaper. They emphasized that the intent was never to promote disharmony or enmity between communities. On the contrary, a prominent unconditional apology was published on the very next day on the front page of the newspaper.

It was contended that no sanction under Section 196 CrPC had been obtained before taking cognizance, which is mandatory for prosecuting offences under Section 153A IPC. The petitioners further argued that Section 153A requires mens rea, and in the absence of a specific role attributed to the petitioners, vicarious liability could not be imposed. The lack of territorial jurisdiction was also highlighted, as another case had already been transferred due to similar issues.


Respondent’s Arguments

The State did not seriously contest the legal submissions and conceded that no sanction under Section 196 CrPC had been obtained. It also acknowledged the lack of essential ingredients under Section 153A IPC and the publication of an immediate and unconditional public apology by the newspaper.


Analysis of the Law

The Court examined Section 153A IPC in depth, noting that the section penalizes acts that promote disharmony or hatred between groups on religious, regional, racial, or similar lines. The requirement of mens rea is intrinsic to this offence. Furthermore, Section 196 CrPC mandates prior government sanction before a court can take cognizance of such offences. The Court stressed that the use of the word “shall” in Section 196 makes this condition mandatory.


Precedent Analysis

The Court relied on the following key decisions:


Court’s Reasoning

The High Court observed three key defects in the case:

  1. Absence of Mens Rea: The publication was a reprint of an internet image and was followed by an immediate apology. There was no intent to cause communal disharmony.
  2. Lack of Sanction under Section 196 CrPC: The court unequivocally held that no court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 153A without prior sanction. The Magistrate failed to consider this mandatory requirement.
  3. Mechanical Cognizance: The Magistrate did not apply judicial mind or record satisfaction regarding the presence of prima facie materials. This failure rendered the process bad in law.

The Court concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of process and a violation of the liberty of citizens, particularly when the foundational legal requirements were missing.


Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 153A IPC against the petitioners. It held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, failed to meet the legal threshold for the offence. The mandatory procedural requirement of prior sanction was also not fulfilled, and the Magistrate mechanically issued process without due application of mind. The revisional application was allowed and all connected applications were disposed of.


Implications

This judgment reinforces crucial safeguards in criminal jurisprudence protecting the liberty of citizens, especially editors and publishers. It clarifies the limited scope of Section 153A IPC and reaffirms the necessity of government sanction under Section 196 CrPC. The decision serves as a precedent for protecting journalistic freedom from frivolous prosecution where statutory procedure is not followed.


Judgments Referred and Their Relevance

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 153A IPC without government sanction?
No, under Section 196 CrPC, prior sanction from the Central or State Government is mandatory before any court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 153A IPC.

2. Is mere publication of controversial content sufficient to attract Section 153A IPC?
No. The publication must have been made with the intent to promote enmity between communities. Mere hurt sentiments or reproduction of third-party content without intent or consequence is insufficient.

3. What protection exists for newspaper editors and publishers in such cases?
Editors and publishers are protected by the principle that criminal liability must be individual and based on specific roles. Courts have consistently held that vicarious liability does not arise under the IPC unless specifically provided.


Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance: “Capability to Earn and Actual Earnings Are Distinct; Maintenance Cannot Be Denied on Mere Capability”

Exit mobile version