I.S. Tiwana, J.@mdashThe petitioner, who is Proprietor and publisher of a fortnightly titled as "Dehati Janta", seeks the quashing of FIR No. 55 of 1987 registered against him in Police Station Batala, District Gurdaspur, on the basis of an article published by him on October 15, 1986, disclosing the commission of offences under sections 124 A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (Act No. 31 of 1985). This article has been reproduced in the F.I.R. in verbatim and the contents of the same are to be better read than reproduced here as it runs into ten closely typed pages.
2. The whole argument of his learned counsel, Mr. G.S. Grewal, is that the reading of this F.I.R. does not disclose any intention on the part of the petitioner to excite or to attempt to excite disaffection to the Government established by law in India or the commission of any terrorist or disruptive activity as envisaged by Act No. 31 of 1985 referred to above. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. I find that this is no stage to pronounce upon the merits of the above noted submission of Mr. Grewal.
3. To prove an offence under section 124A as also under the latter mentioned Act, all that has to be done by the prosecution is to establish that the accused spoke or wrote the words which had some meaning and thereby brought or attempted to bring into hatred or contempt or excited or attempted to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India. To my mind, if a particular article is charged as being seditious on the ground that it says more than what appears on the face of it the prosecution is well entitled to show that by leading evidence and to establish the guilty meaning or intent attributed to it. Further, it may be that the intent of the petitioner in writing this article may not be affected or obliterated by his own statement during the course of trial as the same is to be derived from the contents of this article, yet nonetheless the defence or the statement of the petitioner during the course of trial to explain away the intention behind the publication would be a matter to be taken into consideration. As yet he has said nothing in this petition in this regard he surely would be entitled to disclose as to how his mind worked when he wrote and published this article. Besides this, Sukhdev Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 1987 Punjab & Haryana 5, : 1986(2) Recent CR 261, a cage almost parallel to the one in hand, when the learned Judges of the Full Bench or this Court while considering the question of grant of bail to the petitioner failed to agree as to whether the contents of the article published by the accused gave rise to offences similar to the ones the petitioner is accused of, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 1723 of 1986 (Sukhdev Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh), decided on August 7 1986, instead of expressing anything about the contents of that article directed a speedier trial of the case with the following observations :
This is eminently a case which should be heard at a very earlier date...... The Magistrate will not take into account any of the observations made in any of the judgments given by the High Court since he will have to decide only on the basis of the evidence led before him.
It is thus manifest that any expression of opinion by this Court at this stage on the issue involved may well prejudice the case of either side, i.e., the petitioner or the prosecution.
4. I, therefore. decline to interfere in the matter at this stage and direct that the police should complete the investigation against the petitioner and submit its report within a period of one month from today.
JUDGMENT accordingly.
