Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order dated July 30, 1953, by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, forfeiting two Hindi books written by the appellant, Harnam Das, titled 'Sikh Mat Khandan Part 1' and 'Bhoomika Nazam Sikh Mat Khandan'. The Government declared the books forfeited on the ground that they contained matter punishable under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which relate to promoting enmity between classes and insulting religion. The order, however, did not state the grounds of the Government's opinion as required by Section 99A; it merely cited the penal provisions without specifying which communities were alienated or whose religious beliefs were wounded. The appellant applied to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 99B to set aside the forfeiture order. A Special Bench of the High Court, while acknowledging that the requirement to state grounds was mandatory, held that under Section 99D it was precluded from considering any point other than whether the books in fact came within the mischief of the offence charged. The High Court examined the books, found their contents 'obnoxious and highly objectionable', and dismissed the application. The appellant then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was the proper construction of Section 99D of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: whether the High Court, in an application to set aside a forfeiture order, must examine the grounds on which the Government formed its opinion, or whether it could independently assess the books for objectionable matter. The appellant contended that because the Government failed to state the grounds of its opinion, the High Court could not be satisfied that the grounds justified the order and should set it aside. The State, relying on certain High Court decisions, argued that the High Court's duty was limited to examining the books to see if they contained the objectionable matter. The majority of the Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Sarkar J for four judges, held that the order was invalid. The Court reasoned that an order under Section 99A can only be made when the Government forms a specific opinion and states the grounds for it. Section 99B gives the affected party the right to apply to set aside the order, and Section 99D requires the High Court to set aside the order if it is not satisfied that the book contained matter of the nature referred to in Section 99A. The majority interpreted the words 'matter of such a nature' in Section 99D as referring only to those matters on which the Government's opinion was based as disclosed in the grounds stated. Therefore, the High Court could not uphold the order on grounds different from those stated by the Government. Since the order omitted the grounds entirely, the High Court could not be satisfied that the grounds justified the opinion and was bound to set aside the forfeiture. The Court approved Arun Ranjan Ghose v. State of West Bengal and disapproved Premi Khem Raj v. Chief Secretary, N. Veerabrahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Baba Khalil Ahmed v. State of U. P. Justice Das Gupta dissented, holding that Section 99B limited the ground of challenge to whether the book contained seditious or objectionable matter, and that the High Court had no power to set aside the order merely because the Government failed to state grounds. According to the dissent, the High Court's duty was to examine the books to see whether the opinion formed was correct. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and held that the Government's forfeiture order should be set aside for failure to state the grounds of opinion as mandated by Section 99A.
Headnote
A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Forfeiture of seditious publications - Mandatory requirement to state grounds of opinion - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 99A - The State Government must state the grounds of its opinion when forfeiting a book under s.99A; a mere citation of the offence sections is insufficient. The order forfeiting the appellant's two Hindi books merely stated that the books contained matter punishable under ss.153A and 295A IPC but did not specify which communities were alienated or whose religious beliefs were wounded. Held that the requirement to state grounds is mandatory, and omission renders the order defective (Paras 1-6). B) Code of Criminal Procedure - Powers of High Court under s.99D - Scope of judicial review of forfeiture order - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 99B, 99D - Under s.99D, the High Court must set aside a forfeiture order if it is not satisfied that the grounds stated by the Government justify the opinion that the book contains seditious or objectionable matter. The High Court cannot uphold the order by independently examining the book and finding other objectionable matter not relied upon by the Government. Held that where no grounds are stated, the High Court cannot be satisfied and must set aside the order; the Allahabad High Court erred in examining the books and dismissing the application (Paras 1-6). C) Code of Criminal Procedure - Precedential value of earlier High Court decisions - Conflicting views on s.99D - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 99D - The Supreme Court resolved a conflict among High Courts: Arun Ranjan Ghose v. State of West Bengal, (1955) 59 C.W.N. 495, which held that High Court must set aside order if grounds not stated, was approved; Premi Khem Raj v. Chief Secretary, A.I.R. (1951) Raj. 113, N. Veerabrahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. (1959) A. Pr. 572, and Baba Khalil Ahmed v. State of U. P., A.I.R. (1960) All. 715, which held the High Court could examine the book independently, were disapproved. Held that the correct construction required the High Court to assess the grounds on which the Government formed its opinion (Paras 1-6). D) Code of Criminal Procedure - Dissenting opinion - Limited grounds for challenging forfeiture under s.99B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 99B, 99D - Per Das Gupta J, the High Court had no power to set aside an order on the ground that the Government omitted to state grounds; s.99B limited the ground of challenge to whether the book contained seditious or objectionable matter. The High Court's duty was to examine the books to see whether the opinion formed was correct, not to check the grounds stated. Held that the appeal should be dismissed, disapproving Arun Ranjan Ghose and approving Baijnath v. Emperor, A.I.R. (1925) All. 195 (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under s.99D of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 should set aside an order of forfeiture under s.99A when the Government order does not state the grounds of its opinion as required by s.99A; and whether the High Court's duty is limited to examining the books for objectionable matter or to examining the grounds on which the Government formed its opinion.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed that the Government's forfeiture order under Section 99A be set aside because it failed to state the grounds of opinion as mandated. The High Court should have set aside the order under Section 99D without examining the books. Justice Das Gupta dissented.
Law Points
- An order under s.99A CrPC must state grounds of opinion
- mere citation of penal sections not sufficient
- High Court under s.99D must set aside order if grounds not stated because cannot be satisfied grounds justify opinion
- High Court cannot examine book independently to uphold order on different grounds
- Sections 99B and 99D must be read together
- statutory requirement mandatory
