JUDGMENT - M.L. DUDHAT, J. :---The important question arising for resolution in this writ petition is "whether there are reasonable grounds to hold that cognizable offences under sections 153-A and 153-B of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter `the Code, have been committed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by publishing articles in the news paper `Samna which are at Exhs. `A to `I and `K to this petition.

2. Petitioner No. 1 in this case is a retired I.A.S. officer. Petitioner No. 2 is a founder Editor of Business India and Business World and a management consultant. They have sought a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to register crime under sections 153-A and 153-B of the Code against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The relevant facts are as under :

3. After the demolition of Babri Masjid, riots took place in Bombay. During that time respondent No. 3 Editor and respondent No. 4 Executive Editor of newspaper `Samna published editorials which, according to the present petitioners, prima facie fall within the mischief of sections 153-A and 153-B of the Code. Though the offences under sections 153-A and 153-B of the Code are cognizable offences under the Criminal Procedure Code, still respondent No. 2 the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, did not register the crime against respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioners, therefore, pray for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to register the crime - and to respondent No. 1 to grant the sanction under section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 violated the law deliberately but no step to apprehend them under the law has been taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The inaction on the part of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has created great deal of disquiet amongst the minority communities.

5. Respondent No. 2 the Commissioner of Police of Greater Bombay denied the allegation of inaction on the part of the police. He submitted that during the aforesaid period the police had registered crimes against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for offences under sections 153-A and 153-B of the Code. After registration of the crime sanction under section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was also sought from respondent No. 1. In respect of some crimes respondent No. 1 have already granted the sanctions and the prosecution is launched. This by itself shows, according to respondent No. 2, that the police force was vigilant in taking action against respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It is further contended by respondent No. 2 that in respect of the articles at Exhs. `A to `I and `K to the writ petition he was of the opinion that the said articles, if read as a whole, do not attract provisions of sections 153-A and 153-B of the Code. In respect of article at Exh. `J prosecution has been launched against respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Further it is contended by respondent No. 2 that since they have already taken action, which we will refer to in the later part of our Judgment, it is not necessary for respondent No. 2 to launch prosecution against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on each and every editorial or article published by them in `Samna newspaper. In short the case of respondent No. 2 is that they have scanned all the articles of `Samna and where they found prima facie evidence about commission of offences under sections 153-A and 153-B of the Code, effective steps were taken by lodging the complaint and for seeking sanction under section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In other cases where the articles were questionable as in the case of Exhs. `A to `I and `K to the petition but not coming within the mischief of section 153-A and 153-B of the Code, they had sent the said articles to the Press Council of India for necessary action under the Press Council Act of 1978.

6. The State of Maharashtra respondent No. 1 stated that the articles referred to in the petition Exhs. `A to `I an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document