SAMBASIVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) I agree with the conclusion drawn by my brothers Kuppuswami and Lakshmaiah, JJ. , in their separate judgments, namely that the petition be dismissed.

( 2 ) THE meaning and scope of Section 124-A, I. P. C. are well known and well established. After the two opinions of my learned brothers, it is unnecessary for me to elaborate the legal position. A mere criticism or denunciation of the Government established by law is not objectionable. Citizens are certainly entitled to express their grievances and to endeavour to get them redressed through lawful means. However, if these attempts or exhortations bring the established Government or tend to bring it into hatred and contempt, they certainly come within the ambit of sedition as stated in Sec. 124-A, I. P. C. The test that should be applied is to find out whether any article or articles intend to have the effect of creating feelings of hostility towards Government and to excite disaffection. I am not referring to the case law on the point since they have been considered at length by my learned brother.

( 3 ) NOW the question is whether the issue of Srujana of May 1974 contains material which causes or tends to cause such disaffection. In the first poem complained of, people are exhorted to break open godowns and to cut to pieces who come to obstruct. It is also declared that the rickshaw-puller will go to the forest to take up the fight and before he goes away, he will cut the throat of the money grabber (sait) with all vengeance. In the third one, poor people are exhorted to take up axes and sickles and fight. This fight is to put an end to leaches like landlords and exploiters. The way of Naxalbari and the line of Charu Babu, Satyam etc. , which are well known to be violent methods of changing the society and the Government, are acclaimed as the best to attain justice. The last one visualises armed struggle behind the strike (at that time all India Railway strike was going on ). It ends with saying that there will be no rest till the Government is overthrown with arms.

( 4 ) THESE passages certainly intended to bring into hatred and contempt the Government established by law in India and to excite disaffection towards it. They straightway walk into the ambit of Section 124-A, I. P. C. I am therefore satisfied that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is justified in forfeiting the said issue of Srujana.

( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I join my brothers in dismissing the petition. Alladi Kuppuswami, J.

( 6 ) I have gone through the judgment of Lakshmaiah, J. While I agree with the ultimate conclusion that the petition merits dismissal I would like to give my own reasons.

( 7 ) THE petition is one under Section 95, Cr. P. C. , 1973 for setting aside an order made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 95 of the Code, declaring that every copy of the Journal Srujana May, 1974 issue be forfeited to the Government. In that order it is stated that it appears to the Government that the said issue contains objectionable poems and blank verses referred to in the schedule below, which is calculated to bring into hatred and contempt and excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India and is prejudicial to maintenance of harmony and publication of which is punishable under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 95, Cr. P. C. this court is empowered to set aside such a declaration on the ground that the issue of the newspaper or the book or other document in respect of which the declaration was made did not contain any such matter as is referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 95. Under Section 95 where (a) any newspaper or book or (b) any document appears to the State Government to contain any matter, publication of which is punishable under Section 124-A or Section 152-A or Section 152-B or Sections 292, 293, 295-A and Section 296, the State Government, may, stating the grounds of opinion, declare every copy of the issue of the news