(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,—
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.—Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc.—Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Exception.—It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it 2[in good faith and] without any such intent as aforesaid.
Tag: IPC 505 – Statements conducing to public mischief
Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju Vs State of AP and Ors
On his birthday 14 May 2021, Member of Parliament Sri Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju was arrested from his home at Hyderabad by the AP CID Police and brought to CID office at Guntur. On the intervening night between 14th and 15th May 2021, he was subjected to the 3rd degree police torcher by the AP CID Police on the instruction of their Higher up who may be boot-licking their political masters. Then a slew of legal actions were put to motion…
On 19 May 2021,
The Police officials who tried to act smart and favor their pay-master Chief Minister of AP by not implementing the Order of High Court, got served with Contempt of Court notices. The High Court also showcased the shenanigans of the Superintendent of the Government General Hospital, Guntur who is also the wife of the head of the ruling party’s IT Cell also, who did not finish the examination of accused in time and made the High Court wait until 6PM, finally issuing a notice why action should not be taken under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act.
The AAG got rap on his butt from Justice Lalitha Kanneganti by saying that he could be referred to Bar Council for taking appropriate action, which may involve immediate suspension from Bar Association which will render him a non-advocate during suspension period and eventually getting kicked out of the Legal profession itself, all for the chamchagiri he intended to do to the Chief Minister of AP.
Hilarious stuff!!
On 21 May 2021,
Supreme Court granted bail with usual conditions.
In our view, considering the injuries as reported by the Medical Board of the Army Hospital, we can prima facie form an opinion that the appellant may have been ill-treated while in police custody. Further, we are of the opinion that the charges against the appellant are not such in which custodial interrogation would be required as all the statements made by the appellant are on record and the FIR has been lodged only after a detailed enquiry by the State CID. Considering the totality of the circumstances and also the health position of the appellant, specially that the appellant has undergone heart bypass surgery in December 2020, which is not denied by the respondent and has also been noted in the report of the Medical Board of the Army Hospital, we deem it just and proper that the appellant be enlarged on bail
On 17 Jun 2021,
On the request of the petitioner’s advocate, AP High Court disposed of this petition as no further action is required.
