NARAYAN DASS INDURAKHYA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 27-04-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

:392 
NARAYAN DASS INDUllAKHYA 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PR..\DESH 
April 21, 1972 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Criminal Law Amendment Act (23 of 1961), ss. 2 and 4(i)-'Stating 
;the grounds of irs opinion', in s. 4(i)-Scope of. 
The appellant published a book with respect to which the State Gov-
ernment passed an order that, as the bopk questions the rerritotial inte-
grity and frontiers of India in a manner which is likely to be prejudicial 
to the interest of the safety and security df India and thus contains matter 
the publication of which is punishable under s. 2 of the Criminal Law 
Amendment Act, 1961. it was forfeited in favour of the Government under 
s. 4(1) of the Act. The appellant challenged the order under s .. 5, that 
the grounds for the opinion of the State Government, which had to be 
stated under s. 4 of the Act, were not given in the order. The State Go'-
emment filed a counter affidavit stating that the book contained erroneous 
maps Of India with incorrect external boundaties and omitting integral 
parts of India altogether. The High Court dismissed the petition. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (lj The word 'ground' occurring in the section means 'base'. 
'foundation, motive, valid reasons.' 
The grounds must be distinguished 
from the opinion df the Government. The grounds of the opinion must 
mean the conclusion of facts on which the opinion is based. [396E-FJ 
(21 What the State Government did in this case in the opening para-
graph of the order, was merely to quote a portion of the words of s. 2, 
pamely, that 'the book questioned the territorial integrity and frontiers of_ 
India in a manner which is likely to be prejudicial to th: mterest of the 
safety or security of India'. 
The order _gave no indication-of the facts 
or tne statem!'Dts or the representatioru contained i!l the book which, 
according to the State Government, offended s .. 2. 
Jn the order itself 
there was no reference to any map or text in the book which would come 
within the mischief of the section. [396A-CJ 
Mohomed A.Ii, In re: 41 Calcutta 466, Arun Ranjan Ghose v. State of 
Weot Bengal, 59 C:W.N. 495, approved. 
H~mam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 487, Naresh 
Cltondra Ganguli v. The State of West Bengal and orhers, (1960] 1 S.C.R. 
411, 421, State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, [1951] S.C.R. 
167, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No . 
. 236 of 1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated 
March 13, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscella-
neous Criminal Case No. 268 ol 1967. 
Ram Punjwani and P. C. Bhartari, for the appellant. 
R, P. Kapur·and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
R 
NARAYAN DASS v. STATE (Mitter. J.) 
313 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
llllMa, J. 
This appeal by special leave from a judgment and 
order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ 
petition of the appellant challengjn~: ~he order of the State Govern-
ment under s. 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XXIII 
of 1961 ) forfeitin2 the copies of a book published by the appellant 
under s. 4(1) of the· Act, can be disposed of on the short ground 
that the order did not disclose the grounds of the o~inion formed . 
l>y the State Government. 
The Criminal Law (Amendment) 
Act, 1961 
(hereinafter 
referred to as the 'Act') empowered the State Governments by s. 4 
to make order declaring any newspaper or book as defined in the 
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 or any other document 
wherever printed, to be forfeited to the Government if it appeared 
to the Government that the said book etc. questioned the lerritorial 
integrity or frontiers of India in a manner which was or was likely 
to be prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India. 
The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows :-
"S. 2; Whoever by words either spoken or written, 
or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, 
questions the territorial integrity or frontiers of India in 
a manner which is, or is likely to be prejudicial to the 
interests of the safety or security. of India, shall be puni• 
sbable with imprisonment for a term which may ex:-
telld to three years, or with fine, or with both. 
4. (1) Where any newspaper or book as r!efined in 
the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, or any 
other document, wherever prinled, appears to the State 
Gov
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.