The judgment emphasizes the importance of following due procedure under the Telangana Public Security Act and the Cr.P.C, and the need for a narrow interpretation of restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

Since the lis involved in both the matters is the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. Crl.P.No.659 of 2022 is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.439 of 2021 of Amberpet Police Station. The petitioners are A.1 and A.2 in the said crime. The offence alleged against them is under Section 8(2) of the Telangana Public Security Act, 1992 (for short, ‘the Act’)

3. W.P.No.6479 of 2022 is filed by the wife of Akkiraju Hara Gopal @ Ramakrishna @ RK to quash the above said crime and to issue a consequential direction to all the respondents to release the seized book titled “Sayudha Shanthi Swapnam’ written on her husband, by handing over all the 1000 seized copies to her and also direct the respondents not to obstruct the petitioner in conducting the Book Release Meeting.

4. Heard Sri D. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6479 of 2022 and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.659 of 2022, Sri S.Rama Mohan Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, and Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. Brief facts of the case:

i) The 1st petitioner in Crl.P. No.659 of 2022 is proprietor of Navya Printers. The 2nd petitioner is his wife.

ii) The allegations against the petitioners are that they have undertaken printing of a book titled ‘Sayudha Shanthi Swapnam’ with the photos of Akkiraju Hara Gopal @ Ramakrishna @ RK and the said book conveys banned Maoist ideology.

iii) The printing of the said book was undertaken on the request of the wife of Akkiraju Hara Gopal @ Ramakrishna @ RK, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.6479 of 2022, free of cost and out of sympathy for the banned Maoist party. The Police have also seized the following items:

1. 513 imposed Books (tied 10 bundles, each bundle contains 50 books and one bundle of 13 books).

2. 1000 copies of title of books.

3. 487 approximately not imposed books and in loose forms.

4. 25 Aluminium Printing Sheets.

5. (Left Blank).

6. (Left Blank).

7. Two Dell desktop Computers and two CPUs.

8. 1 DVR.

9. MSME Certificate.

10. One pen drive.

11. Two Bill Books.

iv) Thus, the allegation against the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 659 of 2022 is that they have committed the offences under Section 8(2) of the Act.

6. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITOENRS IN CRL.P.No.659 OF 2022:

i) The contents of the complaint dated 12.11.2021 lacks the ingredients of the Section 8(2) of the Act.

ii) No notification mandated under Section 9(2) of the Act was issued.

iii) The 2nd respondent has not followed the procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C. while conducting the search. iv) Though the impugned notification was said to have been issued on 12.11.2021 issued by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, there was no mention about the same in the complaint dated 12.11.2021 and the counter affidavit filed by the Police in Crl.M.P. No.962 of 2021 in Crime No.439 of 2021 filed by the petitioners under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the seized material.

v) Further, the issuance of the impugned notification dated 12.11.2021 was also not mentioned in the search warrant issued under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.

vi) The entire action of the 2nd respondent in registering the said crime conducting search and seizing the above said material is in violation of the procedure laid down under law.

vii) The said book is printed by the petitioners on the request of the Smt.K.Sirisha W/o Akkiraju Hara Gopal @ Ramakrishna @ RK in the memory of her husband.

viii) The book contains articles, reports, editorials, letters and interviews which were already published and telecasted.

ix) The book does not contain any objectionable content.

ix) The 2nd respondent seized the said books without examining its contents and without reaching the conclusion that the content is objectionable.

x) The respondents have also seized the entire printing press