RESPONDENT

295

In Baba Khalil Ahamad v State, the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court has considered the scope
of Section 295-A and its constitutional validity and what are the ingredients which required to prove
for issuing a notification for forfeiting the book and as to how to judge the intention of the writer to
find out whether there is deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings. The
Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, after referring to the earlier judgments in AIR 1917 All. 317;
Baijnath Kedia and Veerabadran Chettiar, supra, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 295-A
and held that, the intention of the writer of a book must be judged primarily by the language of the
book itself, though it is permissible to receive and consider external evidence either to prove or to
rebut the meaning ascribed to it. If the language is of a nature calculated to produce or to promote
feelings of enmity or hatred, the writer must be presumed to intend that which his act was likely to
produce.

19. In State of Mysore v Henry Rodrigms and Another, a Division Bench of this Court, while
considering the Appeal filed by the State, where the accused was charged under Section 295-A for
criticising Roman Church. The accused who had criticised in a series of articles certain beliefs and
practices of the Roman Church in abusive language likely to insult and offend the followers of that
Church. The Division Bench of this Court held that, where the language used while criticising the
beliefs and practices of the Roman Church which likely to insult and offend the followers of that
church, is guilty of an offence under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, even if there is truth in
his criticisms and the criticisms arose out of his sincere conviction that those beliefs and practices
were opposed to the teachings of Christ.