Back
1980 Supreme(All) 45
High Court Of Allahabad
S. Malik, P.N. Harkauli, S.J. Hyder, JJ.
Maulann Azizul Haq Kausar Naqvi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr. Case No. 2746 of 1978
Decided On : Jan 21,1980
R.N. Singh, Haider Husain, Manish Chandra Tiwari, N.A. Khan, M.A. Qadeer
The State Government is required to state the grounds of its opinion that a publication contains matter punishable under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code in the notification issued under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 95 - Notification under Section 95 - Grounds of opinion - Statement of - Mandatory - High Court - Scope of enquiry - Section 96(4) - Interpretation of.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government issued a notification under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, forfeiting a book entitled "Munaqib-e-Ahle Bait" on the ground that it contained matter likely to hurt the feelings of the Sunni Muslims and lead to greater misunderstanding between Shia and Sunni Muslims. The applicants, the author and one of the publishers of the book, challenged the validity of the notification under Section 96 of the Code.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notification was invalid on the following grounds: * The State Government failed to state the grounds of its opinion that the book contained matter punishable under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, as required by Section 95(1)(a) of the Code. * The passages in the book considered by the State Government to be objectionable were not written in bad taste or couched in offensive or intemperate language, and therefore did not constitute an offence under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government was required to state the grounds of its opinion that the book contained matter punishable under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code in the notification issued under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? 2. Whether the passages in the book considered by the State Government to be objectionable constituted an offence under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the State Government was required to state the grounds of its opinion that the book contained matter punishable under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code in the notification issued under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 95(1)(a) of the Code mandates the State Government to state the grounds of its opinion in the notification. 2. No, the passages in the book considered by the State Government to be objectionable did not constitute an offence under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code. The passages were not written in bad taste or couched in offensive or intemperate language, and therefore did not have the tendency to insult the feelings or the deepest religious convictions of any section of the people.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the notification issued by the State Government under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
S. J. Hyder, J.
1. THIS is an application u/Sec. 96 of the CrPC 1973 filed by Aziizul Haq Kausar Naqvi and Inamul Haq Qadri. The applicants call in question the validity of the notification dated June 28, 1977 issued by the State Government forfeiting the book entitled "Munaqib-e-Ahle Bait" (In praise of the Members of the Household of the Holy Prophet). The said notification has been issued in the purported exercise of powers of the State Government under Sec. 95 of the said Code. The impugned notification, excluding the schedule appended thereto, is duced below for the sake of convenience :-
"Whereas it appears to the Stat); Government that the Urdu Book entitled "Manaqib e-Ahle-Bait" written by Maulana Azizul Haq Kausar Naqvii Nizam i, published by
1. Maulvi Inamull Haq Kadiri Siraji,
2. Dr. Haji Ali Raza Qadiri Siraji,
3. Mohammad Yasiit Khan,
4. Haji Barkatullah Nakshbancfc Kadin Siraji and
5. Abdul Rashid Kadiri Siraji, printed at Ilmi Electric Machine Press, Telia Nala, Varanasi contains matter detailed in the Schedule to this notification which harshly cr.ti- cases the role of Amir Moavia who in held in high esteem by the Sunni Muslims and the language used is likely to hurt the feelings of the Sunni Muslims and lead to greater misunderstanding; between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims and which is thus prejudicial tot the maintenance of harmony between] Shia and Sunni Muslims and which is; likely to disturb the public tranquility and the publication whereof is punishable u/S. 153-A of the IPC, 1860. Now, therefore, in exercise of the: powers under Sec. 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2, of 1974), and on the grounds noted above, the Governor is pleased to declare every copy of the said book and of any other documents containing copies,, reprints and translation of, or extract; from he said book to be forfeited to Government."
2. A bare reading of the notification shows that the order of forfeiture: was passed by the State Government on the ostensible ground that the book; severely criticised the role of Amir Mauwiya who, in the opinion of the State Government, is held in high esteem by the Sunni Muslims.
The language employed in the: book in its opinion, was likely to hurt the feelings of that sect and was calculated to lead to greater misunderstandings between the Shia Muslims and the Sunni Muslims and was thus prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and goodwill between the members of the two sects, and in consequence was likely to disturb public peace and tranquility. The State Government was further of the opinion that the publication of the said work was an offence punishable under Sec. 153-A of the IPC.
3. AZIZUL Haq Kausar Naqvi, the first applicant, is the author of the book and Inamul Haq Kadri is one of its publishers. Both of them have claimed that they themselves belong to the Sunni sect and that the book referred to above does not contain any material which is likely to promote feelings of ill-will between the Sunnis and the Shias. According to them, the publication aforesaid is not likely to disturb public tranquility and it does not amount to an offence punishable under Sec. 153-A of the IPC. They have also raised some legal contentions against the validity of the aforesaid notice which shall be considered later in this judgment.
4. AS already stated, the notification under Sec. 95 CrPC is dated June 28, 1977 and was published in the Government Gazette on 2jrd July, 1977. The application under Sec. 96 CrPC has been moved in May, 1974$. Since sub- sec. (1) of Sec. 96 of the CrPC lays down that an application for setting aside an order shall be moved by the person aggrieved by such notification within two months from the date of its publication in the official Gazette, the applicants have also filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act praying for the condonation of the delay. The application is supported by an affidavit of Inamul Haq Qadri.
It appears that although the not
