Forfeiture of a publication requires language that promotes enmity or public disorder; temperate criticism is not enough.

Delay in filing a challenge to a forfeiture notification was condonable because Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applied the condonation provisions to the special limitation period, and the applicants showed lack of timely knowledge supported by the circumstances. On the merits, forfeiture under the criminal procedure provisions was tested against the grounds stated in the notification, but the impugned passages were not abusive, intemperate, or likely to promote enmity or disturb public tranquillity. The Court treated temperate criticism of a religious or historical figure as insufficient to attract liability under the penal provision, and the forfeiture was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the application under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the notification forfeiting the book was sustainable when the passages relied upon did not amount to matter punishable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the application under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The limitation for moving an application under Section 96 was special, but Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 made Sections 4 to 24 applicable to special laws unless expressly excluded. The applicants' case that they had no timely knowledge of the forfeiture notification was supported by the surrounding circumstances, including the absence of actual seizure. The Court found sufficient ground to extend time.

Conclusion: The delay was condonable and the application was within the Court's power to entertain.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification forfeiting the book was sustainable when the passages relied upon did not amount to matter punishable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The Court held that under Sections 95 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the challenge was to be tested on the grounds disclosed in the notification, and here the notification itself annexed the passages considered objectionable. On a substantive examination, the Court held that Muavia was not shown to be a figure whose criticism would necessarily offend Sunni religious feelings, and that liability under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 depends not on the mere subject matter but on the nature and effect of the language used. The book's passages were found not to be abusive, intemperate, or likely to promote enmity or disturb public tranquillity.

Conclusion: The impugned notification was not justified and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The forfeiture order could not stand, and the application succeeded with the notification set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A publication is punishable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 only when its language, viewed in context, is calculated to promote enmity or disturb public tranquillity; temperate criticism of a religious or historical figure does not attract forfeiture under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---