LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-68

SANGHARAJ DAMODAR RUPAWATE Vs. NITIN GADRE JOINT SECRETARY

Decided On April 26, 2007
KUNDA, PRAMILA, INDIAN INHABITANT Appellant
V/S
MANISHA MHAISKAR, JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is an application under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also filed as a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We however, propose to treat it and dispose it off as an application under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The State of Maharashtra on 15.1.2004 issued a notification under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, forfeiting every copy of the book captioned "Shivaji-Hindu King in Islamic India", written by one Mr. James W. Laine and was first published in the year 2003 at Oxford University Press, New York and Delhi. The matter was heard and posted for judgment on December, 21, 2006. On that date, the State Government filed an affidavit dated 17th January, 2006 setting out that notification dated 15.01.2004 had been withdrawn forthwith. Another notification dated 28th December, 2006 was produced which has the same effect as the original impugned notification.

(2.) Before going into the merits of the matter, we wish to deal with the contention as urged on behalf of the Respondents in their oral arguments as also in the written submissions, that the Petitioners have no locus standi to file and maintain the present petition. it is submitted that the Petitioners cannot be said to be a "person having any interest" in the book in issue. "A person aggrieved", " a person having any interest" and "a person merely affected" it is submitted, must be clearly distinguished from each other for the purpose of Section 96 of Cr.P.C. This distinction is required to be drawn in the light of the nature of the book and the rights, if any, claimed in that regard by the Petitioner. A reader of a book cannot claim that he is "a person having any interest" in terms of Section 96. Reliance for that is placed in Ramlal Puri v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 AIR(MP) 152.

(3.) The question therefore, is whether the Petitioners considering the language of Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are entitled to maintain this application/Petition. The relevant provisions of Section 96(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read as under: