https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289355 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. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:17:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289355 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289355