MANUBHAI TRIBHOVANDAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in these matters relates to the validity of an order dated 16th June 1971 made by the Government of Gujarat under sec. 99/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of a book in the Gujarati language instituted Extracts from Mao-Tse-Tung. This book contains passages extracted from the speeches delivered at different times by Mao-Tse-Tung who is the acknowledged leader of Chinese Communist thought and at present the Chairman of the Peoples Republic of China. It is printed by Purshottam Murlidhar Brahmbhatt Jayshree Mudran and published by Manubhai Tribhovandas Patel Secretary of Shri Dinker Mehta Shastri Poorti Lokayat Jnankendra Trust. The Government of Gujarat by an order dated 16th June 1971 made in exercise of the power conferred under sec. 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure declared every copy of this book to be forfeited to Government on the ground that it contained seditious matter the publication of which is punishable under sec. 124A of the India Penal Code. The full text of the order is material and it was in the following terms :-

(2.) Now the order made by the State Government was published in the Official Gazette as required by sec. 99A but it was not served on Manubhai Tribhovandas Patel though he was the publisher of the book. He came to know about the making of the order only when he read reports about the same in several newspapers and particularly the issue of The Times of India dated 20th June 1971. He thereupon filed Special Criminal Application No. 24 of 1971 challenging the validity of the order on various grounds which included inter alia challenge to the constitutional validity of sec. 99A on the ground of infraction of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution one Chandubhai Hathibhai Patel who is an active Communist having an interest in the circulation of he book also made an application to this Court being Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 331 of 1971. under sec. 99B for setting aside the order of the State Government on the ground that the issue of the book did not contain any seditious matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 99A. Similar application under sec. 99B was also made by one Dinker K. Mehta one of the trustees of Shri Dinkar Mehta Shastri Poorti Lokayat Jnankendra Trust and this application was numbered Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 332 of 1971. These last two applications being applications under sec. 99B were liable to be heard by a Special Bench of three Judges while the first application being one under Article 226 could be heard by a Division Bench consisting of two Judges but since all the three applications were directed against the same order of the State Government and involved common points for determination an oral application was made to me that first application should also be heard by the Special Bench of three Judges along with the other two applications and this application being fair and reasonable it was granted by me. That is how all these three applications have now come before our Special Bench.

(3.) Before we set out the grounds of challenge against the validity of the impugned order made by the State Government it would be convenient at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of law which bear on the controversy between the parties. Secs. 99A to 99G form a group of sections introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Press Law Repeal and Amendment Act 1922 Sec. 99A was amended in its application to the former State of Bombay by Bombay Act 18 of 1955 and omitting portions immaterial it reads as follows in its amended form:-