Mitter, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the State Government under S. 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XXIII of 1961) forfeiting 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 opinion formed by the State Government.
(2.) 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 territorial 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: "Section 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 punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 4. (1) Where any newspaper or book as defined in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867,or any other document, wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 2 or sub-section (2) of section 3, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the issue of the newspaper containing such matter and every copy of such book or other document to be forfeited to the Government, and thereupon and police officer may seize the same wherever found and any Magistrate may, by warrant authorise any police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to enter upon and search for the same in any premises where any copy of such issue or any copy of such book or other document may be or may be reasonably suspected to be. ********** 5. (1) Any person having any interest in any newspaper, book or other document in respect of which an order of forfeiture has been made under section 4 may, within two months from the date of such order, apply to the High Court to set aside such order on the ground that the issue of the newspaper, or the book or other document in respect of which the order was made did not contain any matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4. (2) The provisions of sections 99-C to 99-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall apply in relation to an application under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to an application under section 99-B of that Code and the reference in section 99-D to seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 99-A of that Code shall be construed as reference to any matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4 of this Act. (3) No order passed or action taken under section 4 shall be called in question in any Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section." The appellant who was admittedly the proprietor of the Narmada Printing Works, Jabalpur had published a book under the name and style of "Madhyamic Bhoogol (Part I for Classes IX and X) written by C. P. Saxena. On 1st July, 1967 the State Government passed the order which is impugned in this case: "Whereas the books specified in the Schedule below question the territorial integrity and frontiers of India in a manner which is likely to be pre-judicial to the interest of the safety and security of India; And whereas it appears to the State Government that the said three books contain matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 (No. 23 of 1961); Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, the State Government hereby declares every copy of the said three books and all other documents containing copies, reprint and reproduction of the said books to be forfeited in favour of the Government." The second item in the Schedule relates to the appellant's publication. From the communication of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 5th August 1967 it would appear that the State Government took objection to Pages 138, 147 and 149 of the said book as containing wrong maps. According to the said communication: "These books contain maps of India, part of India, maps of countries adjacent to India and maps of Asia. All these maps involve the external boundary of India which has been found to be grossly incorrect. Besides this the Island territories of 'Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands' which form an integral part of India are omitted together from every map of India. In some of the maps the territory of Bhutan has been omitted while in other, Indo-Pakistan boundary is ignored.' The communication refers not only to the publication with which we are concerned in this case but also two other publications both of which appear to be books on Geography for School students. The appellant filed his writ petition on August 20, 1967 before the High Court challenging the order of the 1st July 1967 inter alia on the ground that the grounds for the opinion of the State Government which had to be given in terms of Section 4 of the Act were non-existent in the order. He therefore filed the petition within two months of the date of the order forfeiting the books in terms of Section 5 of the Act.
(3.) In the counter affidavit of the State the stand taken was that the State Government was not bound to place details of information on the basis of which its satisfaction was arrived at. Reference was however made in the counter affidavit to a communication of the Director of Map Publications to the Director of Public Instruction dated 21st March 1967 in which it was stated with regard to all the three alleged offending books that "they contain maps of India, part of India and maps of Countries adjacent to India and maps of Asia. All these maps involve the external boundary of India which has been found to be grossly incorrect. Besides this, the Island territories of 'Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands' which form an integral part of India are omitted together from every map of India. In some of the maps the territory of Bhutan has been omitted while in other Indo-Pakistan boundary is ignored.";