Milter, J.—This appeal by Special Leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the State Government under section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XXIII of 1961) forfeiting the copies of a book published by the appellant under section 4 (1) of the Act, can be disposed of on the short ground that the order did not disclose the grounds of the opinion formed by the State Government.

2. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) empowered the State Governments by section 4 to make order declaring any newspaper or book as defined in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, or any other document wherever printed, to be forfeited to the Government if it appeared to the Government that the said book etc., questioned the territorial integrity or frontiers of India in a manner which was or was likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India. The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:

“Section 2. Whoever by words either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, questions the territorial integrity or frontiers of India in a manner which is, or is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

4. (1) Where any newspaper or book as defined in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, or any other document, wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 2 or subsection (2) of section 3, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the issue of the newspaper containing such matter and every copy of such book or other document to be forfeited to the Government, and thereupon any police officer may seize the same wherever found and any Magistrate may, by warrant authorise any police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to enter upon and search for the same in any premises where any copy of such issue or any copy of such book or other document may be or may be reasonably suspected to be.

* * * *

5. (1) Any person having any interest in any newspaper, book or other document in respect of which an order of forfeiture has been made under section 4 may, within two months from the date of such order, apply to the High Court to set aside such order on the ground that the issue of the newspaper, or the book or other document in respect of which the order was made did not contain any matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-section

(1) of section 4.

(2) The provisions of sections 99-C to 99-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall apply in relation to an application under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to an application under section 99-B of that Code, and the reference in section 99-D to seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 99-A of that Code, shall be construed as reference to any matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4 of this Act.

(3) No order passed or action taken under section 4 shall be called in question in any Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section.”

The appellant who was admittedly the proprietor of the Narmada Printing Works, Jabalpur, had published a book under the name and style of “Madhyamic Bhoogol (Part I for Classes IX and X) written by C.P. Saxena”. On 1st July, 1967 the State Government passed the order which is impugned in this case: “Whereas the books specified in the Schedule below question the territorial integrity and frontiers of India in a manner which is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the safety and security of India;

And whereas it appears to the State Government that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document