The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the police have the authority to seize magazines under Section 292 IPC, procedural safeguards and reasonable exercise of this power are necessary to prevent harassment and ensure fair treatment of publishers and printers.

( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions, presented by the publishers of certain magazines questioning the legality of the seizure of all the copies of certain issues of the magazines the following question of law arises for consideration:"whether a Police Officer has the power to seize all the copies of an issue of a magazine printed and published and/or kept for sale in the Book stalls on the ground that an offence under Section 292 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ('the IPC for short) is suspected to have been committed through writings, articles and/or pictures published in the said issue of magazine?"

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are these: (I) IN W. P. 10650/86:- This Writ petition is by Akhila Publishers Pvt. Limited, bangalore. They are the publishers of a weekly film magazine entitled "chitravihari" and a monthly magazine entitled "surathi". On 6-6-1986 the Upparpet Police in the City of Bangalore seized 20,000 copies of 'surathi' magazine comprising of different monthly issues. The Police party who seized the magazines consisted of two Sub-Inspectors and a few Constables. The Police has also filed a case against the petitioner for an offence under Section 292 of the I. P. C. Questioning the legality of the seizure of the magazines, the petitioners have presented this writ petition. (II) W. P. 14339/1986:- The petitioner is the proprietor of a firm which publishes magazines entitled 'my My", 'pussy Cat', 'o boy' and 'ufp and other english magazines on the first day of every month from New delhi since the year 1980. He is also the chief Editor of these magazines. On 6-6-1986 the magazines published by the petitioner and which were kept for sale in various book- stalls in the City of Bangalore were seized by the Police and a case has been filed against the petitioner under section 292 of the I. P. C. Questioning the said seizure, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. (III) Re:w. P. 14760/1986:- The petitioner in this petition is the Editor and publisher of Kannada monthly magazine "rathi - Vijnana Darpana" published for punarvasu Prakashana, Vijayanagar, bangalore. According to the averments made in the petition, in the first week of June 1986, the Police came down heavily on publishers, distributors of sex and obscene magazines and seized several magazines including the magazine of the petitioner. A ease has been registered against the petitioner for an offence under Section 292 of the I. P. C. Questioning the legality of the seizure, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. (IV) Re: W. P. 9799/1987:- The petitioner is the owner, printer and publisher of a Kannada monthly magazine 'chakori'. The registered office is in Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The copies of the magazine of the petitioner had been seized by the Police and a case has been registered against this petitioner under section 292 of the I. P. C.

( 3 ) IN each of the petitions, the concerned petition has stated that the magazine contains educative and instructive material and the magazines have got very wide circulation and that respectable people have contributed articles to the magazines, and the nude photographs of a man and a woman in compromising position printed in the magazine are not obscene within the meaning of the definition of that word in section 292 (1) of the I. P. C. and that articles and writings in the magazines were intended to provide Sex-education. Their main plea is that the Police had acted arbitrarily in seizing the magazines and thereby the valuable right guaranteed to the petitioners, namely, the freedom of speech and expression under article 19 (l) (a) of the Constitution which includes the freedom of the press and freedom to circulate their magazine as also the liberty of publishing such material which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, has been deprived. In support of their submission that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution includes th