1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 02.03.2007 passed in Crl.M.P.No.11292 of 2006 in S.C.No.443 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The appellant, who has been arrayed as 1st accused in S.C.No.443 of 2005, filed Crl.M.P.No.11292 of 2006 under Section 452 Cr.P.C. to return back the books seized by the respondent police alleging that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.972 to withdraw the case against the appellant and on the basis of the said Government Order, the case has been withdrawn by the respondent. By the judgment dated 18.10.2006, the accused were acquitted under Section 321(b) Cr.P.C. According to the appellant, at the time of arrest, some books were seized from the appellant by the respondent police and same were kept by the respondent police in their safe custody. Since the seized books were written by the appellant and the same were kept for export for selling in foreign countries, no purpose would be served to keep those books in the custody of the respondent police. Hence, the appellant prayed for return of the books.

3. The respondent police opposed the petition filed by the appellant stating that the books which were seized from the appellant contain speeches of the appellant supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which is a banned organisation in India, and if the books were returned to the appellant, it will be circulated to the public and also it will cause disturbance to the peace and public tranquility. Therefore, the seized books cannot be returned to the appellant.

4. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petition holding that the books contained words supporting the Tamil Eelam and the author of the books inducing the Tamil people to raise their voice in support of Tamil Eelam and if the books were returned to the appellant, it will be circulated to the public and will cause great injury in the minds of the readers and also the peace and tranquility of the public would be disturbed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. Assailing the impugned order of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the lower Court ought to have returned the books when it found that no case was made out against the appellant and also no claim was made by any other person. The learned Senior Counsel argued that since the lower Court itself admitted the fact that the books which were marked as M.O.1 belong to the appellant, it ought not to have dismissed the petition filed by the appellant stating that the books will be circulated to the public and also it will cause great injury in the minds of the readers. The learned Senior Counsel next submitted that the lower Court ought to have seen that till date no appeal has been preferred by the respondent police qua ownership of seized books. Since there was no appeal, the lower Court ought to have returned the books to the appellant and prayed for setting aside the order of the lower Court and also prayed for return of the seized books to the custody of the appellant.

6. Per contra, the learned Advocate General for the State submitted that the seized books contain words supporting the Tamil Eelam and the appellant who is the author of the books induced the Tamil people to raise their voice in support of Tamil Eelam. The learned Advocate General further submitted that if the books are returned to the appellant, the same would be circulated to the public and will cause great hardship and injury in the minds of the readers and also peace and public tranquility would be disturbed. Noting all these things, the lower Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant and there is no need to interfere with the order of the lower Court.

7. I heard Mr.S.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.