HARNAM DAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case arises from an application made by Sri Harnam Das under Section 99-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is the author of a book entitled Sikh Mat Khandan/Part I" & of its preface rendered in verse entitled 'Bhoomika' Mazam Sikh Mat Khandan' which were first published at Gorakhpur in April 1953. In July 1953 the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh took action under the powers conferred by Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and declared the books to be forfeited to Government on the ground that they contained matter the publication of which was punishable under Section 153-A and Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. By the application before us we have been asked to set aside this order of the State Government on the ground that the book does not contain matter as is referred to above. In support of the application it has been contended that the applicant has taken his facts and material from authoritative literature of the Sikh religion, that he wrote the books in a spirit of fair and honest criticism without any malicious intention of producing hatred and that he never intended to promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of subject.

(2.) In the preface the author sets out the occasion for his writing the book. The principal book itself contains this preface. The other book entitled as 'Bhoomika Nasam Sikh Mat Khandan' is again described by the author as a verified preface to the main book and as an intergal part of it which is to be read in conjunction with it. The two books bear cross references of one another. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the contention of the applicant that in judging the merits of the one, we should not look into the contents of the other. In fact as we read the two books we find that the versified preface is nothing more than what is contained in the main book; and as the author himself has described it in the concluding verses it is by way of refutation of the creed preached and practised by the Sikha and also by way of a warning to the public not to fall into their deceptive clutches whose intriguing talks supported by base literature do no more justice to their cause than to expose themselves and their creed to utter hallowness and degradation. Both the books are priced publications. The author in the last stanza of the preface has clearly indicated that the book is intended for wide circulation and is meant to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of subject so that by reading the same the sons of the Aryan race may escape the persecutions and shares of the Sikhs.

(3.) When an application is made under Section 99-B to have an order of forfeiture set aside on the ground that the matter published does not fall within the mischief of Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code it is for the applicant to convince the Court that for the reasons he gives the order is a wrong order. Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the State Government to declare certain publication forfeited to the State and it, inter alia, provides that where such publication contains any matter which promotes or is intended to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India, or which is deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious-feelings of any such class by insulting the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, that is to say, any matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian penal Code, the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette setting the grounds of its opinion declare such matter and every copy of such matter forfeited to Government. The notification published in the Gazette states that the books contain matter the publication of which is punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A I. P. C. The requirement of Section 99-A to state the ground of opinion without stating facts does not, in our opinion, amount to a statement by the Government of the grounds of its opinion. The requirements to state the ground is mandatory. A mere citation of words of the section will not do. But as has been held by a Special Bench of this Court in Baijnath v. Emperor, AIR 1925 All 195(A), with which we respectfully agree, the High Court, in view of the provisions of Section 99-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure is precluded from considering any other point than the question whether in fact the document conies within the mischief of the offence charged. It is evident that the scope of Section 99A is wider than that of Section 153A, because the words