“Law Master’s Publication”
‘Decency and Morality’
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
163
a publication of this sort may fall. Thus, the test of ‘obscenity’ is whether the matter in
question has a tendency to deprive and corrupt the mind of those in whose hand it will fall.
I]
Sale, etc., of obscene Books, etc. (S. 292):-
Clause (2) of S. 292 specifies offence and provides punishment thereto. It provides
that
Whoever-
a) Sells lets to hire, distribute, publicly exhibit or put into circulation, etc., or
b) Import or exports or conveys any obscene objects for any of the purposes aforesaid,
c) Takes part in or receives profits from the business in the course of which he knows
or has reason to believe that any such obscene object was made for any of the
aforesaid purposes.
d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged in,
or is ready to be engaged in any act which is an offence under this section,
e) Offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section.
The punishment is imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of up to two thousand
rupees on the first conviction. In case of subsequent communication, the punishment
provided is imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of up to Rs. 5,000/-
Clouse (1) of S. 292 lays down the test to decide whether the book, pamphlet, paper
etc., is obscene or not. It states that the publication of a book, pamphlet, paper, writing,
drawing, painting, representation, figure, etc., will be deemed obscene if-
i)
It is lascivious, or
ii)
iii)
Appeals to the prurient interest, or
If its effect, or the effect of any of the items, tends to deprive and
corrupt persons likely to read, see or hear the matter contained in such
material.
In Ranjit D.Udeshi V/s State of Maharashtra1
Facts:- Ranjit Udeshi was one of the four partners of a firm owing a bookstall. He was
convicted, along with other partners, for being in possession of an obscene book containing
obscene matter.
Defence: The appellant's defence was that the matter contains art and gives a
message; therefore, it cannot be punished under S. 297.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and held that where ‘obscurity’ and
art are mixed, art must be so preponderating as to throw the obscenity into the shadows or
make it overlooked.
1 (AIR 1956 SC 881)