JUDGMENT

Bhide, J. - This is an application under Section 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act (Act 23 of 1931) by one Parmanand, keeper of the Nami Press at Lahore, for the setting aside of the order of forfeiture of his security passed by the Governor of the Punjab. The order was passed on the basis of an article about the Hindu-Muslim riot at Hissar which was published on 30th March 1938 in a daily paper called the 'Vir Bharat' printed at the said Press and which in the opinion of the Governor, contains words which are of the nature described in Clauses (d) and (h) of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. The article in the Yir Bharat to which objection has been taken consists really of a letter from the correspondent of the paper, written on the next day, after the riot and purporting to give a detailed account of the riot including its causes, the various incidents that took place and the steps taken by the authorities to restore order.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that an article of this description which merely purports to give news about a riot and the correctness of the facts stated in which has not even been challenged does not fall within the purview of Clause (d) or Clause (h) of Section 4 of Act 23 of 1931. The learned Advocate-General on the other hand maintained that even assuming that the account of the riot given in the article was correct, it offended against Clause (h) of Section 4, as it contains statements tending to promote feelings of hatred and enmity between Hindus and Muslims, e.g. that a Muslim police officer had got a cow slaughtered in a village, where no cow slaughter had previously taken place and that this had led to great tension between Hindus and Muslims, that the Muslims were the aggressors in the riot, that they themselves set fire to the 'chaubara of a Muslim and spread a false report that this was done by the Hindus, that some of the Muslims armed themselves with guns and shot 4 or 5 Hindus including Rai Bahadur Chhabildas, Honorary Magistrate, who was requesting both parties with folded hands not to fight and so forth. It was contended that statements of this description, whether true or false, were bound to have a tendency to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindus and Muslims and consequently the article in question fell within the purview of Clause (h) of Section 4 of Act 23-of 1931.

3. I may mention here that although the order of forfeiture refers to Clause (d) as welt as Clause (h) of Section 4, the former clause was not relied on before us. The only statement in the article in question which may perhaps be construed as having a tendency to bring the Government into hatred ands contempt is to the effect that there was a. preponderance of Muslim police officers in the Hissar District which had led to harsh treatment of Hindus and that the authorities had failed to redress this grievance in spite of repeated requests. This isolated statement might at the most be considered to be an attack upon the individual officers concerned, but it cannot, I think by any stretch of language, be construed as an attack upon the 'Government established; by law in British India' within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 4. I shall therefore confine: myself to a discussion of Clause (h) of Section 4 on which the learned Advocate-General laid stress and on the basis of which he maintained that the mere publication of news of a Hindu-Muslim riot of the kind appearing in the article in question is sufficient to-render the keeper of a Press liable to have his security and even the Press forfeited. I may mention here that the learned Advocate-General did not take up the position that there was any misrepresentation off facts or anything else in the article to show that it was published with the intention to promote class hatred. The question has therefore to be considered in this case on; the assumption that the article contained a correct statement of facts and was merely published