VARSHA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have read the judgment proposed to be delivered by my learned brother Gadgil J., which sets out the relevant facts and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. I agree with the view taken by Gadgil, J. that the impugned notification does not contain the grounds as contemplated by Section 95 of the Criminal P.C. and is, therefore, liable to be struck down on that ground. The instant case in my view is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Harnam Das v. State of U.P. AIR 1977 SC 202 : (1977 Cri LJ 186). Since the impugned notification is liable to be struck down on the first ground canvassed on behalf of the petitioners, I do not consider it is necessary to consider the second contention that the grounds, if may have no nexus with the forming of opinion as contemplated by Section 95 of the Criminal P.C. 1973. In the result I agree that the impugned notification is liable to be quashed and the copies forfeited should be returned to the petitioners. Gadgil, J.

(2.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 96 of the Cr.P.C. Challenging the notification No. BAP-1282/3318/XXXIV dt. 31st July, 1982, issued by the State Government declaring that every copy of the Marathi weekly "SHREE" stands forfeited as it contain certain matters which would be punishable under Section 153 A of the Penal Code. This notification is issued under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the concerned aggrieved party is entitled to apply to the High Court for setting aside the said declaration of forfeiture. Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Criminal P.C. provides that every such application shall be heard and determined by the Special bench of the High Court composed of three Judges and it is in this manner the Writ Petition is heard by us and is belong decided by this judgment.

(3.) Petitioner No. 1 is a limited company carrying on the business of printing and publishing of certain weeklies at Bombay. The second petitioner is the editor, printer and publisher of these publications. The Marathi weekly known as "SHREE" is being published by the petitioners. In addition two other weeklies one in Gujarati and the other in Hindi are also published. The "SHREE" weekly has a circulation of over one Lakh copies per week In the issue dt. 17th July 1882 an article written by Shri. D. B. Pradhan with a title "AKHATI DESHAT VAIDIC DHARMA" was printed. The petitioners in their prior issue of the weekly dated 10th July 1982 had set out advertised that in the next issue of the weekly dated 17th July 1982, as such an article would be published. According to the petitioners D. B. Pradhan published the magazine "Saptahik Gaukari" in the issue dated 21st, 28th June 1981. They have also read in the popular Marathi daily "Sunday Loksatta" dated 9th May 1982 an article on the same subject. Petitioner No. 2 found those article very interesting and at his request Shri. D. B. Pradhan sent the article in question based on his historical research. The petitioners allege that the said Shri D. B. Pradhan is a noted research scholar and historian and hence the petitioners got the article written from him. It is also alleged that the article in question was complied from various text book and reference books and it is based on historical evidence and the author has sought to bring to light certain historical facts hitherto unknown. The petitioners further allege that the said article is of academic interest and the author certain historical facts in the form of an interesting article in the form of an interesting article published in a magazine widely read by a cross section of the public. According to the petitioner the article sets out the religious, cultural and socio-historical backgrounds prevailing in Western Asia before the advent of Islam.