Back
1950 Supreme(Raj) 131
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (F.B.)
Nawal Kishore C.J., Ranawat and Sharma, JJ.
Premi Khemraj - Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary Rajasthan Government - Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of Svt. 2005
Decided On : August 31, 1950
C.L. Agarwal, for Applicant; R.K. Rastogi, Govt. Advocate
Headnote:Criminal P.C., (Jaipur), S. 99-B — Scope.Criminal P.C. (Jaipur), S. 99-D— Words prima facie promoting hatred — Intention to be gathered from words.Criminal P.C. (Jaipur) s. 99B and D — Scope — Words prima facie promoting hatred—Question of actual effect not material.Criminal P.C. (Jaipur) Ss. 99-B and D—Special circumstances— Words prima facie promoting hatred—Burden is on author.Criminal P.C. (Jaipur) S. 99-A— Order of proscription not drawn in words of section whether vitiates order.
The only grounds on which the High Court can set aside the order of prescription are those given in s. 99D. (Para 9)
It is not necessary to look for any external evidence when the words used are such as have a char tendency to promote class hatred, nor is it necessary for the prosecution to establish that the writer had the intention to promote such hatred. In such cases the intention must be gathered from the words spoken or written which themselves must be conclusive. (Para 12)
The only thing that the High Court has to see is whether the words used encourage hatred and enmity between two communities or excite one community against another. It is not necessary to find that they actually brought about enmity and hatred between the two communities. (Paras 13)
If the words have a clear tendency to promote hatred and enmity between two classes it is for the author to show what were the special circumstances obtaining at the time when the book was published or when it was forfeited which would take the sting out of the objectionable matter contained therein. (Para 14)
If the Court is satisfied that the book contains matter which promotes enmity or hatred between two communities. The order of proscription cannot be set aside on the technical ground that the very words which are used in section are not used in the order. (Para 15)
2. Premi Khemraj (who will herein after be referred to as the author in this Judgment) edited a booklet named Congress ka Khuni Itihas in the year 1946 and it was published by Hindu Pustak Bhandar, Jaipur, in December 1946. The Govt. of Jaipur by their order No. 8984/ MB. dated the 9th July 1948, published in the Jaipur Gazette dated the 1st August 1948, prescribed the said booklet as well as another booklet, Punjab-men-Pakistani Gundashahi edited by Gulab Chand Kala, which was also published by Hindu Pustak Bhandar, Jaipur. The order runs as follows:—
"Jaipur, the 9th July 1948.
"Congress Ka Khuni Itihas."
"Punjab Men Pakistani Gundashai."
Whereas the Govt. of Jaipur are satisfied that the circulation within the State of the marginally noted booklet is likely to be prejudicial to communal harmony and consequently to the maintenance of public peace and order in the State, and whereas the Govt. of Jaipur for the aforesaid consideration deem it necessary to prohibit the purchase, transfer, sale, or otherwise possession of the said booklet in the State, it is hereby ordered that under sec. 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1943 the purchase, transfer, sale or otherwise possession, of the said booklet is banned with immediate effect in the Jaipur State territory, excluding Sambhar Sham-lat area".
3. The present application relates only to Congress Ka Khuni Itihas, and the author has prayed for the cancellation of the order of proscription relating to this booklet on the ground that there was no such matter in it as was likely to be prejudicial to the communal harmony and consequently to the maintenance of public peace and order in the State as apprehended by the Govt. of Jaipur. It was alleged that the proscription was made in pursuance of the general all India-wise policy of the Congress Govt. of suppressing all other political thoughts and thinking of the country except that of. Congress and that too by the Congress-men.
4. A notice was issued to the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Jaipur and the said Govt. having been replaced by the Govt. of Rajasthan; the application has been contested by the present Govt. of Rajasthan.
5. It has been argued on behalf of the author in the first instance that the order of proscription was bad in as much as none of the conditions for proscription given under sec. 99A are mentioned therein, and the grounds of the Govt. opinion, as required by sec. 99B (1) have also not been given. It has also been contended that the book merely records historical facts and it neither pro notes nor was intended to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majestys Subjects.
6. On behalf of the State the learned Govt. Advocate has argued that this court is not authorised under the present proceedings, to take into account the fact that the condition given under sec. 99-A are not specifically mentioned in the order of prescription or that the Govt. have not state 1 the grounds of their opinion therein. He has argued that the only grounds, on which this court can set aside the order of proscription are given under sec. 99D which runs as follows:-
"On receipt of application, a special Bench shall, if it is not satisfied that the issue of the book, or other document, in respect of which the application has been made, contained seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-section (1) of sec. 99A. set aside the order of forfeiture."
7. It has b en argued that the court shall be justified in setting aside the order of proscription only when it was not satisfied that the book contained such matters as are referred to in sec. 9 A. These are seditious matters or any matter which promotes or is intended to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His
