The High Court's duty under S. 99-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to set aside an order of forfeiture if it is not satisfied that the grounds on which the Government formed its opinion that the books contained matters punishable under Ss. 124-A, 153-A or 295-A of the Penal Code could justify that opinion.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - S. 99-A, 99-B, 99-C, 99-D - Construction - Order of forfeiture of books under S. 99-A - Grounds of opinion to be stated - High Court's duty under S. 99-D - Scope.
Fact of the Case:

The Government of Uttar Pradesh made an order under S. 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure forfeiting two books published by the appellant on the ground that they contained matters punishable under Ss. 153-A and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant challenged the order in the High Court under S. 99-B, contending that the order should be set aside as the grounds of the Government's opinion had not been stated. The High Court rejected this contention and upheld the order, holding that its duty under S. 99-D was only to see "whether in fact the document comes within the mischief of the offence charged."
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in its interpretation of S. 99-D. The Court held that the High Court's duty under S. 99-D is to set aside an order of forfeiture if it is not satisfied that the grounds on which the Government formed its opinion that the books contained matters punishable under Ss. 124-A, 153-A or 295-A of the Penal Code could justify that opinion. The Court further held that the Government's failure to state the grounds of its opinion in the notification of forfeiture was a fatal defect, and that the High Court should have set aside the order on this ground.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that its duty under S. 99-D was only to see "whether in fact the document comes within the mischief of the offence charged."? 2. Whether the Government's failure to state the grounds of its opinion in the notification of forfeiture was a fatal defect?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the High Court's duty under S. 99-D is to set aside an order of forfeiture if it is not satisfied that the grounds on which the Government formed its opinion that the books contained matters punishable under Ss. 124-A, 153-A or 295-A of the Penal Code could justify that opinion. The Court reasoned that the purpose of S. 99-A's requirement that the Government state the grounds of its opinion is to enable the High Court to set aside the order if it is not satisfied of the propriety of those grounds. The Court also noted that S. 99-B limits the grounds on which an application to set aside an order of forfeiture can be made to the ground that the book does not contain any seditious or other matter of the nature referred to in S. 99-A(1). The Court concluded that the High Court's interpretation of S. 99-D would allow the High Court to uphold an order of forfeiture on grounds other than those on which the Government based its opinion, which would be contrary to the purpose of S. 99-A and the limited grounds for review provided in S. 99-B. 2. The Court held that the Government's failure to state the grounds of its opinion in the notification of forfeiture was a fatal defect. The Court reasoned that the Government's opinion is the basis for the order of forfeiture, and that without a statement of the grounds of the opinion, the High Court cannot determine whether the opinion is justified. The Court also noted that S. 99-A requires the Government to state the grounds of its opinion in the notification of forfeiture, and that this requirement is mandatory.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order upholding the order of forfeiture. The Court also directed the Government to return all the books, documents and other things seized from the appellant under the order of forfeiture, and to refund the expenses and costs that he had to pay under the order of the High Court.

Judgment

SARKAR, J. : The only question that was argued in this appeal is substantially one of construction of S.99-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The appellant was the author of two books in Hindi called Sikh Mat Khandan Part 1 and Bhoomika Nazam Sikh Mat Khandan which he has published in April 1953. On July 30, 1953, the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the respondent in this appeal, made an order under S. 99-A of that Code forfeiting these books which were thereupon seized and taken away. That order, so far as material, was in the following terms:

"In exercise of its powers conferred by section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure ......... the Government is pleased to declare the books ......forfeited to Government on the ground that the said book contain matter, the publication of which is punishable under sections 153-A and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code."

It is the validity of this order that is challenged in the present appeal.

3. Section 99-A under which the order was made, so far as relevant, is in these terms:

"Where any newspaper, or book ......or any document.....appears to the State Government to contain any seditious matter or any matter which promotes or is intended to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India or which is deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of any such class by insulting the religion or the religious belief of that class, that is to say, any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124-A or section 153-A or section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette stating the grounds of its opinion, declare .....every copy of such book....to be forfeited to Government........"

4. Two things appear clearly from the terms of this section. The first thing is that an order under it can be made only when the Government forms a certain opinion. That opinion is that the document concerning which the order is proposed to be made, contains "any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124-A or section 153-A or section 295-A of the Penal Code." Section 124-A deals with seditious matters, S. 153-A with matters promoting enmity between different classes of Indian citizens and S. 295-A with matters insulting the religion or religious beliefs of any class of such citizens. The other thing that appears from the section is that the Government has to state the grounds of its opinion. The order made in this case, no doubt, stated that in the Government s opinion the books contained matters the publication of which was punishable under Ss. 153-A and 295-A of the Penal Code. It did not, however, state, as it should have, the grounds of that opinion. So it is not known which communities were alienated from each other or whose religious beliefs had been wounded according to the Government, nor why the Government thought that such alienation or offence to religion had been caused.

5. Now S. 99-B gives the person interested in the books, or documents forfeited, a right to apply to the High Court to set aside the order made under S. 99-A, and S. 99-D specifies the High Court s duty on such an application being made to it. These two sections will have to be especially considered in this case and so they along with S. 99-C, are set out below.

Section 99-B. Any person having any interest in any newspaper, book or other document, in respect of which an order of forfeiture has been made under section 99-A, may, within two months from the date of such order, apply to the High Court to set aside such order on the ground that the issue of the newspaper, or the book or other document, in respect of which the order was made, did not contain any seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 99-A.

Section 99-C. Every such application shall be heard and determined by a Special Bench of the High Court composed of three Judges.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1961 Supreme(SC) 218

Cases Referred (3)