By the Court.—By these petitions under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short the ‘Code’) Notification No. 1232 P/vi-Pu-6-2008-6(Vividh)/2008 dated May 5, 2008 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code ordering the forfeiture of the book titled ‘Jatiraj’ penned by Shri Laxmi Kant Shukla, is under challenge.

2. Heard Shri Satya Narayan Shukla and Shri K.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioners are Secretary of ‘Meydha’ a registered society and publisher of the book titled Jatiraj and readers of the said book written by Laxmi Kant Shukla, a P.C.S. Officer. The book was published in December 2006. On May 5, 2008 the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the respondent made an order under Section 95 of the Code forfeiting the book captioned ‘Jatiraj’.

4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order of forfeiture on the grounds (i) there was complete non-application of mind; (ii) it is vague to the extent as what was considered objectionable has not been indicated; (iii) the grounds for its opinion have not been stated; (iv) the great personages, other religion and classes of society referred to have not been specified; (v) there is no material to show what was the basis for holding that the acts were done deliberately and maliciously; (vi) it violates Rule 4 of Rules of Business; (vii) it is unjustified on facts; (viii) the facts and material annexed with counter affidavit cannot be used to supplement the grounds for the opinion of Government.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary submitted that order of forfeiture was passed after fully considering the matter contained in the book. The petitioners have no locus standi to question the validity of the impugned order. The order of forfeiture can be challenged only on the ground that issue or book in respect of which declaration was made did not contain any such material as referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code. The impugned notification satisfies the requirement of Section 95 of the Code as in the first part of the order for declaration of forfeiture the grounds of opinion have been set out. According to the learned counsel grounds of opinion means conclusion of facts on which opinion is based. Merely because the great personages, other religions and classes of society have not been indicated does not effect the validity of the notification.

6. The relevant part of the impugned order was in the following terms :

“Whereas in the book Jatiraj written by Shri Laxmikant Shukla, P.C.S. Officer (under suspension) and published by Meydha Prakashan Allahabad, there have been used defamable comments against the great personages and the words used are hurting their dignity and the language used therein is instigating the sentiments of followers of other religions whereby it is quite possible that bitterness and ill-will may thrive amount the various and classes of society resulting in sharp reactions in the society. The said book has been deliberately written, printed and published to generate bitterness and ill-will. Whereby there is all probability of ill-will and offensiveness in the various classes of society;

And whereas, the State Government is satisfied that the writing and publication of the said book is punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) the Governor is pleased to declare that every copy of aforesaid issue of the book “Jatiraj” and any other document containing copies, reprints translation thereof or extracts therefrom shall be forfeited to the State Government and if there is any doubt of being the material related to i