Case Name : Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra Case Reference: (1965) 1 SCR 65 Case Number: Crl A 178/196 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 05 Coram: P B Gajendragadkar, K N Wanchoo, M Hidayatullah (Author), J C Shah Date: 19.08.1964
There is a difference between obscenity and pornography. (Page 70, B-C) Pornography is intended to arouse sexual desire Obscenity is when when it is not intended but has the tendency to do so Pornography is obscenity in a more aggravated form
The prosecution need not prove that the person who sells or keeps for sale any object knows that it is obscene. (Page 71, C-D)
There is strict liability in IPC - Section 292; absence of knowledge may be taken in mitigation, but does not take the case out of IPC - Section 292 (Page 71, F-G) ; (Page 72, C)
When the accused claims lack of knowledge, the court can presume that the accused is guilty in two conditions: (Page 72, B-C) 1) If the book is sold on his behalf; 2) the book is found to be obscene
Refer also:
Judgment name
See also: [Constitution - Article 19](a) [Constitution - Article 19]
Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra, (1965) 1 SCR 65.pdf