The prosecution should be undertaken in the interests of justice and not to satisfy the private grudge of a litigant. Sufficient materials showing that an offense is likely to have been committed are required before setting the criminal law in motion.

1. The petition is by one Mr. John Peter Thottam, the Managing Proprietor of Kalavilasini Publishing House, Trivandrum, to pass orders under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute Mr.Mathew M.Kuzhiveli, the Text Book Officer of the Government of Travancore-Cochin State for the offence under section 189 I.P.C. The petitioner had filed original petition No. 62 of 1951 on 13th June, 1951 against the Travancore-Cochin State and the present counter-petitioner for such directions, orders or writs to or against the counter-petitioners as would prohibit and prevent them from further publishing or selling any copies of the book entitled "Kerala Padya Patavali" prescribed for the fifth form and also to seize and obtain possession of all copies of the said book and to grant other appropriate reliefs. The State had appointed a committee to select books in Malayalam verses so that they may be prescribed as texts for the different grades and classes under the Education Department, It was stated that the book printed for the use of the fifth Form contained a poem composed by Miss Mary John, the sister of the petitioner and which was included without having obtained the permission of the petitioner in whom the copy right of the said poem vested. In the course of that enquiry the counter-petitioner filed an affidavit that permission of the authoress had been sought for by a letter dated 22-5-1951, that a reply was received from her on 6-6-1951, that the copy right of the said poem had been transferred to her brother so that he may be contacted in the matter, that he had contacted him over the phone on the same day and obtained his permission and that on the faith of his permission the printing of the book was completed and distribution started in the usual course.

2. It was the petitioner's case that this statement of fact in the affidavit was false, because the book had been printed in May 1951 as seen from the inner title of the same. Notice of this petition was given to the counter-petitioner and the State and the counter-petitioner had filed an affidavit explaining that though the date of the printing was noted on the cover as May 1951, the printing was completed only after the permission of the petitioner was obtained over the phone. He had also filed a statement showing items of text books received from the Government Press, Trivandrum and it is seen therefrom that 13,000 copies of this were, delivered from the Press on 7th June 1951. He would also say that the date "May 1951" printed in the inner title of the book was not the date of the completion of the printing nor does it denote the date of publication. The learned Government Pleader stated that it indicated only the date on which the order was issued to the press to print the book and that the last form of this book had been printed only after the petitioner's permission was obtained. The book in question contains 16 selected poems and it has 64 pages on the whole. The poem "Painkili" about the publication of which the O.P. was filed is the 14th poem printed there and it appears on pages 51, 52 and 53. It is to be seen with these backgrounds whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to start criminal proceedings against the counter-petitioner. The statement now made by the counter-petitioner may or may not be true. It is true that he had not given any explanation at the time when the original petition No. 62 of 1951 was heard why the date "May 1951" is printed in the book. It is also equally true that this had not been mentioned as a ground of attack in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the original petition. With the materials available then, it was only possible to state that the counter-petitioner's case that the book was printed only after 6th June 1951 cannot be correct. It is possible that the last form might have been struck after obtaining the formal permission. With the facilities available in the press and the emergent state of