2007 AIR SCW 2829 ::2007 CRI. L. J. 2933 ::2007 (4) AIR Kar R 53 ::(2007) 2 Raj Cri C 675 ::(2007) 2 CurCriR 437 ::(2007) 3 AllCriR 2502 ::2007 (5) SCC 11 ::2007 (2) SCC(Cri) 427 ::2007 (2) MadLJ(Cri) 1181 ::2007 (2) RecCriR 1003 ::(2007) 6 Scale 486 ::(2007) 2 ALD(CRL) 381 ::2007 (104) CutLT 424 ::(2007) 3 CTC 85 (SC) ::2007 (4) KantLJ 353 ::2007 All MR(CRI) 1748 ::(2007) 56 AllIndCas 129 (SC) ::2007 (56) AllIndCas 129

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 1998 Cri LJ 3639 (Karnataka))

Hon'ble Judge(s): Pratap Singh, H. S. Bedi , JJ

(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.95— Forfeiture of book - Inflammatory and baseless allegations made in book - Merely because said allegations were pointed out by eminent personalities and brought to notice of Govt. - It would not amount to abdication by State of its function - Notification declaring forfeiture of book cannot be said to be mala fide or without application of mind. (Para 13) (B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.95, S.96— Constitution of India , Art.19(1)(a)— Declaration of forfeiture of book - S. 95 does not by itself create criminal offence inasmuch as sections of IPC referred therein are merely descriptive which need to be prevented - Declaration u/S. 95 is preventive in nature - Onus of proof that book was malicious and intended to outrage feelings of group of citizens would not lie on State Government - Reason being, intention has, to some extent, to be inferred from nature of publication - Forfeiture, if, called for in public interest it must have pre-eminence over any individual interest - Efficacious remedy is available to aggrieved party u/S. 96 - S.95 not violative of Art. 19 (1)(a) of Constitution. (Para 17 20) .....