WANCHOO, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Mohan Singh under sec. 28(1) of the Marwar Press Act, 1947.
(2.) IT appears that Mohan Singh was the proprietor of a Press known as Shree Radhakrishna Printing Press, and this Press used to print and publish a newspaper called "Kurukshetra". The press was ordered to deposit security under sec. 10 of the Marwar Press Act. On the 19th January, 1949, that security was ordered to be forfeited under sec. 11(1) of the Act on the ground that the issue of "Kurukshetra" dated 13th December, 1948, contained an article headed "Devlok-men-Lokraj" and the issue of the 20th December, 1948, contained the report of a speech of Swami Karpatriji, which (a) brought into hatred and contempt the Government established by law in Marwar, and (b) encouraged or incited persons to interfere with the maintenance of law and order. The applicant contends that no such interpretation can be put on the two articles and the order forfeiting security was, therefore, incorrect and should be set aside. It is clear that the forfeiture was made on the ground that sec. ll(l)(d) and (f) applied to the matter published on the 13th and 20th December, 1948. It is, however, remarkable that though clauses (d) and (f) contain a number of grounds, the order of the 19th January, 1949, was confined only to two grounds namely, (i) that the matter in question brought into hatred and contempt the Government established by law in Marwar, and (ii) that it encouraged and incited persons to interfere with the maintenance of law and order. The principles on which such writings should be judged are well known and have been laid down in a number of cases. In Harkishan Singh vs. Emperor (1) (AIR 1946 Lahore, 22) Mahajan J. observed as follows at page 24 - "It is a well recognised principle that the court should in every case consider the writing as a whole and in a fair, free and liberal spirit, not dwelling too much upon isolated passages or upon a strong word here and there, which may be qualified by the context but endeavouring together the general effect which the whole composition would have on the minds of the public." The same observations were made by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Shrimati Shailabala Devi (2) (AIR 1952 S.C., 329.) at page 332 - "In order to determine whether a particular document falls within the ambit of any of the clauses of sec. 4(1), the writing has to be considered as a whole and in a fair and free and liberal spirit, not dwelling too much upon isolated passages or upon a strong word here and there, and an endeavour should be made to gather the genera] effect which the whole composition would have on the mind of the public. Expressions which are the stock-in-trade of political demagogues have no tendency to excite anybody and exaggerations in language cannot lead to that result." We, therefore, propose to consider these two writings in the light of these observations. We may first dispose of the second writing relating to the speech of Karpatriji a report of which appeared in the paper dated 20th December. That speech was delivered in Chapra which we understand is somewhere in the State of Bihar. Learned Assistant Government Advocate appearing for the State admits that there is nothing in the report of the speech which brings into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in Marwar, nor is there anything in the report of that speech which affects the maintenance of law and order in Marwar, or encourages or incites anybody to interfere with the maintenance of law and order in Marwar. Learned Asstt. Government Advocate, however, wanted to argue that the report of this speech might bring into hatred or contempt the Government established in British India as it then was. That argument is not open to him because the order of the 19th January does not specify that the security was being forfeited because any of the writings brought into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in British India. The two writings must be considered in the context of the order and no ground can be added to that order now. So far, therefore, as the report of Karpatriji's speech is concerned, there is nothing in it which could bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in Marwar, or which could encourage or incite persons to interfere with the maintenance of law and order in Marwar. That report, therefore, need not be taken into consideration in judging whether the order of forfeiture is correct. We are then left with the article in the paper of the 13th of December headed "Devlok-man-Lokraj". This article is in the form of an allegory. It starts by describing that a certain person called Batohoo went to heaven where agitation was going on for establishing Lokraj (democracy). It was decided, however, that before Lokraj (democracy) was established in heaven some investigation should be made of the working of democracy on the earth. Therefore, messengers were sent by Lord Indra and they happened to come to Marwar to study the working of democracy here. It may be mentioned that beginnings of democracy had just been made about the year 1948 in the former State of Marwar though the administration was then very far from being a real democratic government. However, the article goes on to say that nine persons were taken by the messengers to heaven to describe their experiences of Lokraj (democracy) in Marwar. The article then further describes what these nine persons thought about the Lokraj (democracy) which was only beginning in Marwar at the time. It is necessary to set out what these nine persons are depicted as saying in this article. So far as the first two, namely, a clerk and a labourer, are concerned, they are only talking of high prices and there is nothing against the Government in their statements. The third person is a naked body or a farmer. His statement also does not contain anything against the Government. The fourth man is a money-lender. He describes the harassment to which the people of his class have been put by having to pay taxes and subscriptions. But in this case also there is nothing against the Government. The next man is Govind Singh, an unemployed M.A. He rallied against nepotism in general in the matter of appointments by appointing authorities, but there nothing specific against the Government. The sixth man is secretary of a society. He says that because of the promulgation of orders under sec. 11 it is not possible even to speak freely and that Lokraj (democracy) has become "Damanraj" (tyramny). It seems that this may have some reference to Government but obviously the whole thing is so exaggerated that any one reading it would hardly begin to harbour hatred and contempt for government established by law.
(3.) THE next person is a jagirdar. He bewails his lot and says that a campaign of hatred was being organised against them. But there is nothing against the government in this either. Then comes a business man. He complains of customs duty and income-tax and says that he has been ruined by these taxes. This again is a familiar kind of exaggeration to which business-men are addicted. He then says that his class pays lacs of rupees in subscription and was responsible for the leaders becoming ministers, but these leaders have proved ungrateful and Lokraj (democracy) in Marwar has been too costly and troublesome to his class. Here again there is very little against the government established by law in Marwar except for the attack on customs duty and income-tax. Such criticism, however, of specific measures may be covered by explanation (2) to sec. 11(1). In any case the attack which has been made in this writing is not of such a nature and in such words as to bring the government established by law in Marwar into hatred and contempt. The last person is one wearing a white cap. He says that things are very well for the class of white cap wearers and they are very happy and would like Lokraj (democracy) to continue in Marwar. This man, thus, does not attack the government established by law and what he says can hardly be a person for creating hatred and contempt against the Government. After these nine persons had described their condition, Lord Indra asked those assembled whether they would like to have Lokraj (democracy) like that in Marwar and all those present said that they wanted true Lokraj (democracy) and that information might be procured from other parts of India. It cannot be said that merely because this part suggests that demo-carcy in Marwar was not true democracy it was sufficient to bring the Government established by law in Marwar into hatred and contempt. It must have been well understood that only beginnings had been made with democracy at that time and no one could possibly think that the administration that was going on in Marwar in 1948 was a true democracy. Therefore, to say that it was not a true democracy could hardly bring the Government into hatred or contempt. Looking, therefore, to the entire Article and to words used in it, we feel that there was nothing in it which could excite the public to fee hatred and contempt for Government established by law in Marwar or to encourage or excite the public to interfere with the maintenance of law and order. It appears to us to be an amusing Article of a harmless type and it there is any criticism of Government established by law in Marwar in this Article, it is of the mildest type. We do not think that such mild criticism would ever excite hatred and contempt against the Government or incite the people to interfere with the maintenance of law and order. We may in this connection refer again to Harkishan Singh's case (1) (AIR, 1946 Lahore, 22.) which dealt with the question of exciting hatred and contempt against Government established by law. The words used in the pamphlet under consideration in that case were much stronger but Mahajan J. observed at page 25 with respect to the language of that pamphlet that - Expressions such as these are the usual stock-in-trade of political demagogues and have no tendency to excite disaffection against the Government established by law in British India. They do not excite anybody. There is no sting left in them and they are of every day use and may be styled as political exaggerations. In the appeal which appeared at the end of the pamphlet, reference was made to five million people murdered in Bengal. It was urged that these words clearly brought the Government established by law in British India into hatred and contempt inasmuch as they suggested that the Government was responsible for murdering five million people in Bengal. Mahajan J., however, did not accept this contention and observed as follows with respect to those words: "It is only by straining the language and by stressing this isolated passage that some remote inference could be drawn from these words that they might have the tendency of exciting disaffection against the Government.........In my view the leaflet in this part only strongly criticises the police of deadlock followed by the Government, but it does not tend to excite disaffection towards it." ;