Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M. N. CHANDURKAR, B. C. GADGIL, V. S. KOTWAL, JJ.
M/S. VARSHA PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Criminal Writ Petn. No.723 of 1982,
Decided On : 3 -5 -1983
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 95 - NOTIFICATION - GROUNDS - FORFEITURE OF COPIES - HISTORICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE - SECTION 153A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a limited company and its editor, publisher, and printer, challenged a notification issued by the State Government declaring every copy of the Marathi weekly "SHREE" forfeited for containing matters punishable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The notification was issued under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the petitioners filed a petition under Section 96 of the CrPC seeking to set aside the declaration of forfeiture.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification did not contain the grounds on which the State Government had formed an opinion that the issue contained matter punishable under Section 153A of the IPC, as required by Section 95 of the CrPC. The court also held that even if the notification contained grounds, they were irrelevant for forming an opinion that the article contained matter punishable under Section 153A of the IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification issued by the State Government under Section 95 of the CrPC contained the grounds on which the State Government had formed an opinion that the issue contained matter punishable under Section 153A of the IPC? 2. Whether the grounds, if any, in the notification were relevant for forming an opinion that the article contained matter punishable under Section 153A of the IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Harnam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh Yadav, which held that a notification under Section 95 of the CrPC must state the grounds on which the State Government has formed an opinion that a particular writing contains matter punishable under Sections 124A, 153A, or 295A of the IPC. 2. The court held that the notification in the present case did not contain any grounds, as the mere mention of the article or a part thereof in the notification did not constitute grounds contemplated by Section 95. 3. The court also held that even if the portion of the notification alleging that the article purported to prove certain historical facts was treated as grounds, they were irrelevant for forming an opinion that the article contained matter punishable under Section 153A of the IPC, as the discussion in the article pertained to the period before the advent of Islam and had no bearing on the question of alleged disharmony or ill-will between Hindus and Muslims.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notification and set aside the forfeiture of the copies of the Marathi weekly "SHREE". The copies forfeited by the respondents were ordered to be returned to the petitioners forthwith, and the petitioners were awarded costs from the respondents.
Chandurkar, Acting C.J. :- I have read the judgment proposed to be deli-vered by my learned brother Gadgil, J., which sets out the relevant facts and the contentions raised on behalf of the peti-tioners. I agree with the view taken by Gadgil, J. that the impugned notification does not contain the grounds as contemplated by Section 95 of the Criminal P.C. and is, therefore, liable to be struck down on that ground. The instant case, in my view, is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Harnam Das v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1662 : (1961 (1) Cri LJ 815), and State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh Yadav, AIR 1977 SC 202 : (1977 Cri LJ 186). Since the impugned notification is liable to be struck down on the first ground canvassed on behalf of the petitioners, I do not consider it necessary to consider the second contention that the grounds, if any, have no nexus with the forming of opinion as contemplated by Sec.95 of the Criminal P.C., 1973. In the result, I agree that the impugned noti-fication is liable to be quashed and the copies forfeited should be returned to the petitioners.
2. GADGIL, J. (for himself and for Kotwal, J.):- The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 96 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the notification No. BAP-1282/3318/XXXIV dt. 31st July 1982, issued by the State Government declaring that every copy of the Marathi weekly "SHREE" stands forfeited as it contains certain matters which would be punishable under Section 153A of the Penal Code. This notification is issued under Section 95 of the Code of Crimi-nal Procedure and the concerned aggri-eved party is entitled to apply to the High Court for setting aside the said declaration of forfeiture. Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Criminal P.C. provides that every such application shall be heard and determined by a Special Bench of the High Court composed of three Judges and it is in this manner the Writ Petition is heard by us and is be-ing decided by this judgment.
3. Petitioner No.1 is a limited com-pany carrying on the business of print-ing and publishing of certain weeklies at Bombay. The second petitioner is the editor, printer and publisher of these publications. The Marathi weekly known as "SHREE" is being published by the petitioners. In addition, two other weeklies, one in Gujarati and the other in Hindi are also published. The "SHREE" weekly has a circulation of over one Lakh copies per week. In the issue dt. 17th July 1882 an article written by Shri D.B. Pradhan with a title "AKHATI DESHAT VAIDIC DHARMA" was printed. The petitioners in their prior issue of the weekly dated 10th July 1982 had set out/advertised that in the next issue of the weekly dated 17th July 1982, such an article would be published. According to the petitioners, they had read certain articles by Shri D.B. Pradhan published in the maga-zine "Saptahik Gaukari" in the issue dated 21st, 28th June 1981 and 12th and 19th October 1981. They have also read in the popular Marathi daily "Sunday Loksatta" dated 9th May 1982 an article on the same subject. Petitioner No.2 found those articles very interesting and at his request Shri D.B. Pradhan sent the article in question based on his his-torical research. The petitioners allege that the said Shri D.B. Pradhan is a noted research scholar and historian and hence the petitioners got the article written from him. It is also alleged lhat the article in question was compiled from various text books and, reference books and it is based on historical evi-dence and the author has sought to bring to light certain historical facts hitherto unknown. The petitioners fur-ther allege that the said article is of academic interest and the author seeks to bring to the notice of others certain historical fads in the form of an inter-esting article published in a magazine widely road by a cross section of the public. According to the petitioner, the article sets out the religious, cultural and socio-historical backgrounds pre-vailin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
