HARNAM DAS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 27-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
487 
HARNAM DAS 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA 
and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
High Court, Powers of-Forfeiture of seditious publications-
Order passed by Government-Application to High Court to set aside 
order-Grounds of opinion not stated in order- Order, if liable to 
be set aside-Code of Criminal Procedure, r898 (Act V of r898), 
SS. 99A, 99B, 99C, 99D. 
The respondent passed an order under s. 99A of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure forfeiting two books written by the appel-
lant as in its opinion they contained matter the publication of 
which was punishable under s. l53A and 295A of the Indian 
Penal Code. The order did not state the grounds on which 
the respondent had formed this opinion as was required by 
s. 99A. The appellant applied to the High Court under s. 99B 
of the Code to set aside the order. Section 99D of the Code pro-
vided that the High Court shall set aside the order of forfeiture 
if it was not satisfied that the book contained seditious or other 
matter of such a nature as was referred to in sub-s. (r) of s. 99A. 
The High Court was of the view that it could not set aside the 
order under s. 99D for the reason that the order did not set out 
the grounds on which the. Government had formed its opinion 
and that its duty was only to see whether the books in fact 
came within the mischief of the offence charged. Upon examin-
ing the books for itself the High Court came to the conclusion 
that their contents were obnoxious and highly objectionable and 
dismissed the application. 
Held (Per Gajendragadkar, Sarkar, Wanchoo and Ayyan-
gar, JJ. Das Gupta, J. contra) that on the failure of the respon-
dent to set out the grounds of its opinion as required bys. 99A 
of the Code the High Court should have set aside the order under 
s. 99D. It is the duty of the High Court under that section to 
set aside the order of forfeiture if it is not satisfied that the 
grounds on which the Government formed its opinion could 
justify that opinion. 
Where no grounds of its opinion are given 
at all the High Court must set aside the order for it cannot then 
be satisfied that the grounds given by the Government justified 
the order. 
Arun Ranjan Ghose v. State of West Bengal, (1955) 59 C.W.N. 
495, approved. 
Premi Khem Raj v. Chief Secretary, A.LR. (1951) Raj. rr3, 
N. Veerabrahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.LR. (1959) A. Pr. 
572 and Baba Khalil Ahmed v. State of U. P., A.LR. (1960) All, 
715, disapproved. 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1962) 
196r 
Per Das Gupta, ].-The High Court had no power to set 
aside the order on the ground of failure of the Government to 
Harnam Das 
set out the grounds of its opinion in the order. The duty cast on 
v. 
the High Court is not to see whether the grounds stated by the 
State of 
Government for forming its opinion are correct but to see whe-
Uttar Pradesh ther the opinion formed is correct; this can only be done by 
examining the books. Section 99B has limited the grounds on 
which relief can be asked for to one and one only, viz., that the 
books do not contain any objectionable matter. It was not 
permissible for courts to add to that grounrl. 
Sarkar]. 
Baijnath v. Emperor, A.LR. (1925) All. 195, Premi Khem Raj 
v. Chief Secretary, A.LR. (1951) Raj. rr3, N:Veerabrahmam v. 
State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I. I<. 1959 A. J;'r. 572 and Baba Khalil 
Ahmed v. State of U. P., A.LR. (1960) All. 715, approved. 
Arun Ranjan Ghose v. The State of West Bengal, (1959) 59 
C.W.N. 495, disapproved. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 74 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated May 7, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court 
in Criminal Misc. No. 2006 of 1953. 
Veda Vyas, S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, for the 
appellant. 
G. C. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent. 
1961. April 27. The Judgment of Gajendragadkar, 
Sarkar, Wanchoo and Ayyangar, JJ., was delivered 
by Sarkar, J. Das Gupta, J., delivered a separate 
Judgment. 
SARKAR, J.-The only question that was argued in 
this appeal is substantially one of construction of 
s. 99D of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
The appellant was the author of two books in 
Hindi called Sikh Mat Khandan Part 1 and Bhoomika 
Nazam Sikh Mat Khandan which he had published 
in April 1953. On July 30, 1953, the Government of 
Uttar Pradesh, the respondent in this appeal, made 
an order under s. 99A of that Cod

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.