The petitioner's remedy, if any, is to move the High Court with jurisdiction over the authority that promulgated the order under Sec. 99-A, and the petition must be filed within the specified time after the order of forfeiture.

CHANDRA REDDY, C. J. :- This application under Sec. 99-B of the Criminal Procedure Code is made in the following circumstances.

2. An order of forfeiture of the book called "Nawal Kashmir" was made by the Government of West Bengal, on the 6th November 1961 on the ground that the book published by the petitioner was deliberately and maliciously intended to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between the Hindu and Muslim citizens of India, the publication of which was punishable under Sec. 153-A I. P. C. This was also published in the Gazette of West Bengal. The Government of Andhra Pradesh re-published the notification on 28-12-1961 bearing Notification No. G. O. Ms. 2437 dated 7-12-1961. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of forfeiture of the book called 'Nawai Kashmir" printed at Taj Press, Calcutta, published by Nafi and Co., and for costs of and incidental to the petition.

3. It may be mentioned here incidentally that in the petition the prayer is to set aside notification and order dated 28-12-1961. Be that as it may, Sec. 99-B of the Criminal P. C. could be resorted to only for getting the order of forfeiture set aside. In this case, that section is of no avail for the reason that it is not the Andhra Pradesh Government that issued the order of forfeiture. It is the Government of West Bengal that made the order under Sec. 99-A Cr. P. C. If so, the remedy, if any, of the petitioner is to move that High Court which has jurisdiction over the authority that promulgated the order under Sec. 99-A. It is also significant that Sec. 99-G says :

"No order passed or action taken under Sec. 99-A shall be called in question in any Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 99-B."

Surely, the action contemplated by this petition does not fall under Sec. 99-B. Section 99-G contains a prohibition against any other mode of calling in question the order of forfeiture made under Sec. 99-A, except in the manner indicated in Section 99-B.

4. There is another obstacle in the way of the petitioner invoking Sec. 99-B. The order of forfeiture was made on 6-11-1961 whereas this petition was filed on 31-1-1962, i.e., more than two months after the order of forfeiture.

It should be remembered that it is the order of forfeiture that furnishes the cause of action and not the re-publication of the notification. On this ground also, this petition has to fail.

5. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.