1959 (3) TMI 70 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code under Article 19 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the forfeiture order under Section 99-A complied with the statutory requirements.
3. Whether the book "Bible Bandaram" contains material punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Scope and extent of the forfeiture order, specifically whether it should apply to both volumes of the book.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code under Article 19 of the Constitution:

The petitioner argued that Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code infringes upon Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The court analyzed Article 19(2), which allows for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of public order, decency, or morality. The court held that Section 99-A does not violate Article 19(1)(a) because it imposes reasonable restrictions aimed at maintaining public order and preventing the deliberate and malicious insult to religious beliefs. The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramjilal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which upheld the constitutionality of Section 295-A IPC, and concluded that Section 99-A is similarly valid.

2. Compliance of the Forfeiture Order with Statutory Requirements:

The petitioner contended that the forfeiture order did not state the grounds of the government's opinion as required by Section 99-A. The court acknowledged this defect but held that it does not invalidate the order. Instead, the court's role under Section 99-D is to determine whether the book contains material referred to in Section 99-A. The court emphasized that the existence of grounds justifying the order is subject to judicial review, thus ensuring that the executive's action is not arbitrary.

3. Material in the Book "Bible Bandaram" and Section 295-A IPC:

The court examined whether the book contained material punishable under Section 295-A IPC, which penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. The court found that the language and content of the book, including passages describing Jesus Christ as the result of an adulterous relationship and criticizing Christian beliefs, demonstrated a malicious intention to insult Christianity. The court concluded that the book's content fell within the scope of Section 99-A and justified the forfeiture order.

4. Scope and Extent of the Forfeiture Order:

The petitioner argued that the forfeiture should be limited to the specific volume containing the offensive material. The court rejected this argument, stating that the book should be read as a whole to determine its impact on the reader. The court held that both volumes of the book collectively constituted a single work aimed at criticizing and insulting Christianity. Therefore, the forfeiture order applied to both volumes.

Separate Judgment by Bhimasankaram, J.:

Bhimasankaram, J., dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence of the petitioner's malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. He emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the government, and the mere presence of offensive passages does not establish the required intention. Bhimasankaram, J., also contended that the forfeiture should be limited to the specific volume containing the objectionable material, and the second volume should not be included in the order. He concluded that the application should be allowed and the forfeiture order set aside.

Conclusion:

The majority of the court upheld the validity of Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and the forfeiture order, finding that the book "Bible Bandaram" contained material punishable under Section 295-A IPC. The court dismissed the writ petition and the criminal miscellaneous petition, with costs awarded against the petitioner. Bhimasankaram, J., dissented, arguing that the government failed to prove the petitioner's malicious intention and that the forfeiture should be limited to the specific volume containing the offensive material.