LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus LALAI SINGH YADAV
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A :B. .c :.E \':i 16 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH I'. LALAI SINGH YADAV September 16, 1976 [P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 99-A-Scope of-Whether 'Stutonent of grounds' a mandatory provision. The appellant Government passed an order under Section 99-A of the Cr. P.C., for the forfeiture of a book entitled 'Ramayan : A true Reading' i.1 English and its translation in Hindi, by Periyar EVR, of Tamil Nadu, on the ground that the book intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India, namely, the Hindus. Thereupon, an application was made by the respondent publisher of the book, under Section 99-C of the Code. to the High Court, which by its special Bench, allowed the application and quashed the notification on the ground that the State Government had failed to state the grounds of its opinion as required in Section 99-A of the Code. The appella,nt contended that a specific statement of grounds by the Govern- ment. is not a mandatory requirement under Section 99-A of the Cr.P.C., & that it can be made by implication. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : To relieve the State from the duty to state grounds of forfeiture, is to permit raptorial opportunity for use of such power over people's guaranteed . liberty. Section 99-A says that you must state the ground and it is no answer to say that they need not be stated because they are implied. An order may be brief but not a blank. A formal authoritative setting forth of the grounds is statutorily mandatory. Section 99-C enables the aggrieved party to apply to the High Court to set aside the prohibitory order and the Court examines the grounds of Government given in the order. The Court cannot make a roving enquiry beyond the grounds setforth in the order and if the grounds are altogether left out, the valuable right of appeal to the Court is defeated. [6100-H, 620B-C, G-HJ Hamam Das v. State of U.P. A.LR. 1961 S.C. 1662, 1666--dictum applied. âĒ f -F Scheneck v. U.S. (1918) 249 U.S. 47, 52==63 L.ed. 470. 473-474;-Abrams "'- v. U.S. (1919) 250 U.S. 616, 629==63 L.ed. 1173, 1180; Bowm,âĒ11 v. Secular Society Ltd. (1917) A.C. 406, 466-7; Arun Ranjan Ghosh v. State of WeM Bengal (I.L.R. 1957 2 Cal., 396), Jwalamukhi v. State of A.P. (I.L.R. 1973 A.P. 114) referred to. Mohammad Khalid v. Chief Commissioner (A.LR. 1968 Delhi 18 FB) Chinna Annamalai v. State (A.I.R. 1971 Madras 448 F.B.), Bc1111e1 Coleman & âĒG Co. v. State of J & K (1974 .T & K L.R. 591) approved. ;H CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1971. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19-1-1971 of .the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 412/ 70). D. P. Uniyal and 0. P. Rana, for the Appellant. S . .N. Singh, for the Respondent. ..4-' . .,_ .>- âĒ r ~ UTTAR PRADESH v. LALA! SINGH YADAV (Krishna Iyer, J.) 617 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. Some cases, apparently innocent on their face- :and this appeal is one such-may harbour beneath the surface pro- foundly disturbing problems concerning freedoms, the unfettered enjoy- ment of which is the foundation for a democracy to flourish. A The present appeal, by special leave, relates to the forfeiture or a B book captioned 'Ramayan : A True Reading' in English and its trans- lation in Hindi, by the late political figure and leader of the Rationalist Movement, Periyar EVR, of Tamil Nadu, by an order of the State <Government of Uttar Pradesh, purporting to be passed under s. 99A - of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the view of the appcllant- government this book was sacrilegiously, outrageously objectionable, being 'deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious C feelings of a class of ctizens of India, viz., Hindus by insulting their religion and religious beliefs and the publication whereof is punishable under s. 295A IPC'. This notification contained an appendix setting out in tabular form the particulars of the relevant pages and lines in the English and Hindi versions which, presumably, were the materials which were regarded as scandalizing. Thereupon an application was made by the respondent who was the publisher, under s. 99C of the D Code, to the High Court which, by its special Bench, allowed the application and quashed the notification. The aggrieved State has appea.Jed to this Court, by special
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.