LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus SANGHARAJ DAMODAR RUPAWATE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 8 S.C.R. 328 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. SANGHARAJ DAMODAR RUPAWATE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5205 of 2010) JULY 9, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 95 - Notification under - Forfeiture for of books - On the basis of FIR alleging c offences u!ss. 153, 153A rlw s. 34 /PC - Notification quashed by High Court - On appeal held: _The power uls. 95 has direct impact on the right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution and impinges on right to privacy - Therefore, the provision has to be construed o strictly and the power thereunder must be exercised only in accordance with the procedure laid down therein - It is mandatory for such notification to state the ground on which the Government formed its opinion - Test of validity of notification - Legal aspects to be kept in mind - Discussed E - On facts, the notification is invalid as the conditions statutorily mandated for exercise of powers uls. 95 are lacking - The FIR which formed the basis for issuance of notification since was quashed by Supreme Court, the notification also becomes invalid - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article F 19(1)(a). State of Maharashtra issued notification u/s. 95(1) Cr.P.C., directing forfeiture of every copy of the book titled "Shivaji - Hindu King in Islamic India". The notification was issued on the basis of an FIR registered u/ss. 153, G 153A rls. s. 34 IPC. The notification was challenged and the same was quashed by High Court. Therefore, the instant appeal was filed by the State. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 328 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. SANGHARAJ 329 DAMODAR RUPAWATE & ORS. HELD: 1.1 The power to issue a declaration of A forfeiture u/s. 95 Cr.P.C. postulates compliance with twin essential conditions, viz., (i) the Government must form the opinion to the effect that such newspaper, book or document contains any matter, the publication of which is punishable u/s. 124-A or Section 153-A or Section 153- B B or Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295-A of IPC, and (ii) the Government must state the grounds of its opinion. Therefore, it is mandatory that a declaration by the State Government in the form of notification to the effect that every copy of the issue of the newspaper, C book or document be forfeited to Government, must state the grounds on which the State Government has formed a particular opinion. A mere citation of the words of the Section is not sufficient. The power to forfeit a newspaper, book or document is a drastic power D inasmuch as it not only has a direct impact upon the due exercise of a cherished right of freedom of speech and expression as envisaged in Article 19(1 )(a) of the Constitution, it also clothes a police officer to seize the infringing copies of the book, document or newspaper E and to search the places where they are reasonably suspected to be found, again impinging upon the right of privacy. Therefore, the provision has to be construed strictly and exercise of power under it has to be in the manner and according to the procedure laid down therein. [Paras 18 and 19] [347-C-F; 347-H; 348-A-B] F 1.2 The following legal aspects can be kept in mind while examining the validity of a notification issued u/s. 95 of Cr.P.C.: G (i) The statement of the grounds of its opinion by the State Government is mandatory and a total absence thereof would vitiate the declaration of forfeiture. Therefore, the grounds of Government's opinion must be stated in the notification issued u/s. 95 Cr.P.C. and while H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A testing the validity of the notification the Court has to confine the inquiry to the grounds so disclosed; 8 (ii) Grounds of opinion must mean conclusion of facts on which opinion is based. Grounds must necessarily be the import or the effect or the tendency of matters contained in the offending publication, either as a whole or in portions of it, as illustrated by passages which the Government may choose. A mere repetition of an opinion or reproduction of the Section will not answer C the requirement of a valid notification. However, at the same time, it is not necessary that the notification must bear a verbatim record of the forfeited material or give a detail gist thereof; (iii) The validity of the order of forfeiture would D depend on the merits of the grounds. The High Court w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.