Forfeiture of offensive publications upheld where the book, read as a whole, targeted religious feelings and fell within statutory limits.

Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code was treated as a constitutionally valid restriction on speech because it targeted publications falling within the mischief of penal provisions concerning sedition, promoting enmity and outraging religious feelings, with Sections 99-B and 99-D providing review safeguards. The omission to state the grounds of opinion in the forfeiture notification was held not to invalidate the order where the High Court could examine the publication on merits. Read as a whole, the book was found to contain grossly offensive and deliberately malicious matter against Christianity, so the forfeiture was upheld and extended to both volumes as one book; one judge dissented on intention and the second volume.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code was unconstitutional as infringing freedom of speech and expression and allied fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution; (ii) Whether the forfeiture order was vitiated because the Government did not state the grounds of its opinion in the notification; (iii) Whether the book contained matter deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of Christians so as to justify forfeiture, including whether the order could extend to both volumes.

Issue (i): Whether Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code was unconstitutional as infringing freedom of speech and expression and allied fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The provision was held to be a restriction directed against publications containing matter punishable under Sections 124-A, 153-A or 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. It was treated as a measure intended to protect public order, decency and morality, and therefore as falling within the saving clauses of Article 19. The availability of a High Court remedy under Section 99-B and the corrective function under Section 99-D were also treated as relevant safeguards.

Conclusion: Section 99-A was held to be constitutionally valid and not violative of Article 19.

Issue (ii): Whether the forfeiture order was vitiated because the Government did not state the grounds of its opinion in the notification.

Analysis: The omission was held not to invalidate the order. The statutory scheme required the High Court, under Section 99-D, to examine whether the publication contained objectionable matter of the kind described in Section 99-A. The absence of stated grounds was treated as a defect, but not one going to the root of validity so as to compel quashing of the order in the face of judicial scrutiny on merits.

Conclusion: The order was not set aside on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the book contained matter deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of Christians so as to justify forfeiture, including whether the order could extend to both volumes.

Analysis: The publication was read as a whole and its language and tenor were found to be grossly offensive and provocative towards Christianity. The Court held that the passages disclosed deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings and that the material fell within Section 99-A. The Court further held that a book published in more than one volume could be forfeited as a whole where the volumes together formed one book and both parts were within the mischief of the section.

Conclusion: The publication was held to fall within Section 99-A and the forfeiture order was upheld in full.

Final Conclusion: The statutory power of forfeiture was upheld, the publication was found to be within the mischief of the law, and the challenge to the order failed.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: Bhimasankaram, J. dissented on the main application, holding that the Government had failed to prove the requisite deliberate and malicious intention and that the forfeiture could not extend to the second volume. Srinivasachari, J. agreed with the Chief Justice on dismissal of the writ petition.

---