1972 (4) TMI 103 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the State Government's order under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961.
2. Requirement for the State Government to disclose grounds of its opinion under Section 4(1) of the Act.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 and related statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the State Government's order under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the order of the State Government dated July 1, 1967, which forfeited copies of a book published by the appellant. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the writ petition, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the order did not disclose the grounds of the opinion formed by the State Government, which is a requirement under Section 4(1) of the Act. The order merely quoted a portion of Section 2, stating that the books questioned the territorial integrity and frontiers of India in a manner prejudicial to the interests of safety or security of India, without indicating specific facts or statements from the book.

2. Requirement for the State Government to disclose grounds of its opinion under Section 4(1) of the Act:
Section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 mandates that the State Government must state the grounds of its opinion when declaring any book or document to be forfeited. The Supreme Court emphasized that "grounds" must mean the "base, foundation, motive, valid reason," and not just a repetition of the statutory language. The grounds must include specific facts or statements from the book that led to the formation of the opinion. In this case, the State Government's order failed to provide such details, merely quoting statutory language without reference to any particular map or text in the book.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 and related statutory provisions:
The Supreme Court highlighted that several statutory provisions require the State to provide grounds for its opinion when curtailing liberty or forfeiting documents. The Court referenced various precedents, including cases under Section 99-A of the CrPC, 1898, and the Indian Press Act. These cases illustrate that the grounds must be distinct from the opinion and must include factual conclusions. The Court also referred to Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires communication of grounds for preventive detention orders, emphasizing that grounds are conclusions of facts that must be communicated.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in its view that the State Government's order stated the grounds of its opinion. The order merely repeated the statutory language without providing specific facts or statements from the book. As such, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the State Government's order dated July 1, 1967, was quashed. The appellant was entitled to the return of all forfeited books.