By The Court:— This case arises from an application made by Sri Harnam Das under Sec. 99-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is the author of a book entitled “Sikh Mat Khandan Part I” and of its preface rendered in verse entitled ‘Bhoomika Nazam Sikh Mat Khandan’ which were first published at Gorakhpur in April 1953. In July 1953 the Government of Uttar Pradesh took action under the powers conferred by Sec. 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and declared the books to be forfeited to Government on the ground that they contained matter the publication of which was punishable under Sec. 153A and Sec. 295A of the Indian Penal Code. By the application before us we have been asked to set aside this order of the State Government on the ground that the book does not contain matter as is referred to above. In support of the application it has been contended that the applicant has taken his facts and material from authoritative literature of the Sikh religion, that he wrote the books in a sprit of fair and honest criticism without any malicious intention of producing hatred and that he never intended to promote or attempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of subject.

2. In the preface the author sets out the occasion for his writing the book. The principal book itself contains this preface. The other book entitled as ‘Bhoomika Nazam Sikh Mat Khandan’ is again described by the author as a verified preface to the main book and as an integral part of it which is to be read in conjunction with it. The two books bear cross references of one another. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the contention of the applicant that in judging the merits of the one we should not look into the contents of the other. In fact as we read the two books we find that the versified preface is nothing more than what is contained in the main book; and as the author himself has described it in the concluding verses it is by way of refutation of the creed preached and practiced by the Sikhs and also by way of a warning to the public not to fall into their deceptive clutches whose intriguing talks supported by base literature do no more justice to their cause than to expose themselves and their creed to utter hollowness and degradation. Both the book are priced publication. The author in the last stanza of the preface has clearly indicated that the book is intended for wide circulation and is meant to promote feelings of enmity and hetred between different classes of subject so that by reading the same the sons of the Aryan race may escape the prosecutions and shares of the Sikhs. When an application is made under Sec. 99B to have an order of forfeiture set aside on the ground that the matter published does not fall within the mischief of Sec. 153A or Sec. 295-A of the Indian Penal Code it is for the applicant to convince the Court that for the reasons he gives the order is a wrong order. Sec. 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the State Government to declare certain publication forfeited to the State and it, inter alia, provides that where such publication contains any matter which promotes or is intended to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India, or which is deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of any such class by insulting the religion or the religious beliefs of that class that is to say any matter the publication of which is punishable under Sec. 153A or Sec. 295A of the Indian Penal Code, the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette setting the grounds of its opinion declare such matter and every copy of such (matter?) forfeited to Government. The notification published in the Gazette states that the books contain matter the publication of which is punishable under Secs. 153A and 259A, I.P.C The requirements of Sec. 99A to state the ground of opinion without stating facts does not, in our opinion amount to a statement by the Government of the grounds of its opinion. The requirement to state the ground is mandatory. A mere citation of words of the section will not do. But as has been held by a Special Bench of this Court in Baijnath Kedia… v. King Emperor…Opposite Party. A.I.R 1925 All. 195. with which we respectfully agree, the High Court, in view of the provisions of Sec. 99-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure is precluded from considering any other point than the question whether in fact the document comes within the mischief of the offence-charged. It is evident that the scope of Sec. 99A is wider than that of Sec. 153A, because the words “or is intended to” have been added to Sec. 99A which do not find place in Sec. 153A. “Intention” falls short of “attempt” and has been made in addition an alternative ground under Sec. 99A. Again, in order to bring a matter under Sec. 295A, I.P.C it is not the mere matter of discourse or the written expression but also the manner of it which has to be looked to. In other words, the expressions used should be such as are bound to be regarded by any reasonable man as grossly offensives and provocative and maliciously and deliberately intended to outrage the feelings of any class of citizens. The legislature contemplates that the words spoken or written which do promote hatred etc. would create sufficient mischief so as to fall within the scope of Sec. 153A and that is not necessary for the State further to establish that the writer had the intention to promote such a hatred. Even if a question of intention were to arise such intention must be gathered from the written words in the present case and they themselves would be conclusive and it would not be necessary for the State further to prove that such an intention was obtained the use of such words.

3. Coming to the facts of this case the author in the garb of ventilating his grievances as to how he was prosecuted by the Sikh community at different stages of his life and even after his retirement from its folds on the folds of the Arya Samajists Creed has vilified in grossest terms the tenets of the Sikh religion, their religious injunctions and customs and the Gurus and seers or saints who by propagating Rai hatnamas of their own acted in negation of the principles which are the true, equitable and just principles of all good religion. The author has attempted to trace the previous history of the community and their ethical origin and has quoted profusely from previous books, trying to show that the Sikh religion is one of the worst of religions and its propagators and upholders have been cheats, frauds and robbers and their tenets hold out only snares for the simple and the unsuspecting who once having been put into their clutches have nothing but regrets and tortures and tribulations to face. He has not even spared the Guru Granth Sahib—a book held most sacred by the Sikhs and he has depicted it as an idol held in false esteem by the Sikhs who while condemning idolatory whorship the Granth as an idol and offer Halwa to it which is provided by funds drawn forcibly out of the depleted purse of the poor and the down trodden. In fact at one place of the book he has suggested that a religion such as this and these who propagate it and also uphold it should be scrapped and removed lock stock barrel lest if any part of it is allowed to remain it would, like the proverbial head of the Hydra, the dragon or the demon, shoot forth its many heads it any such head is left uncut.

4. We would briefly deal upon some of the more offencive passage that are contained in these two books and we would, therefore, first deal with the main book itself. At page 24 of this book those who propagate this religion have been described as a set of liars. At page 29 their conduct has been regarded as the conduct of black marketeers chore bazari. At pages 38 and 39 the Rai hatnama and the tenets of the Guru Sahib have been described as having the effect of obliterating and doing away with the Hindu Panth and the Hindu Dharam and at war with the religion of the Muslims, the Christians and of others as a result whereof no other religion would remain on the surface of the earth except the Sikh religion and no other world except the Khalistan.

5. In the versified preface, verses 91 to 98 clearly indicate that a religion such as this is neither the religion of God nor of any Prophet and it is an outright negation of justice and is the tyranny of a tyrant. The Authors of the Rai hatnamas have been classed as inexperienced and obstinate persons and their efforts have been described as the efforts of these who enjoyed the easily gained wealth by making people worship the Granth Sahib by displaying it like an idol and by telling about to the people that part of their earnings should be dedicated for the offerring of Halwa every day to the Granth Sahib. In verse 120 and 121 of the preface he stated that it is necessary to have this ignorance removed and to have people set free, that these are the foundations of oppression and they should be rooted out soon and that if a tree is cut there is a likelihood of its bearing fruits again and it is therefore necessary that it should be uprooted altogether so that it may not grow up again. In verse no. 172 he stated that by giving false assurances they repeat again and again that the Guru is everywhere present for help. He further stated that by giving false hopes and by deceiving people they squander in debauchery the money collected on occasions when people do obeisance and offer prayers to the Granth Sahib. Again in verse no. 206 he stated that people are led astray and they take a wrong course. He identified the Sikhs with robbers and dacoits and he stated in the same verse that these pursue the people and extract money from them at all stage. In verse 214 he stated that it is not known how their ancestors embraced this religion which does not appeal to senses and it is evident that people have been snared into this religion for nothing.

6. If the author had dealt with the subject from a purely scientific or historical point of view avoiding all offencive and abusive language, then even if he was wrong in his conclusions the passages might not be open to objection. Again, even if in support of his theory he was relying merely on certain customs, habits and practises which are prevailing among some of the Sikhs contrary to the practises laid down in their scriptures he may still be not guilty of an offence under Sec. 153A and 295A, I.P.C But where the author goes beyond this and generalises his remarks so as to make them apply to the entire community and characterises them as low class people where there is no sanctity of principles and sanctity of life and characterises the religion itself as the religion of self seekers, cheats and frauds, the books cease to be purely historical and are bound to promote hatred and enmity between the classes which are compared. When a person attacks another religion there is bound to be considerable resentment in the community whose religion is attacked leading to hatred against the community to which the writer belongs. In such cases the offence may fall within the scope of Sec. 153-A I.P.C Under Sec. 295A, I.P.C insults or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a class are made punishable. Where the origin of a community is sought to be traced so long as there is adherence to the historical part of the narrative, however unpalatable it may be to the members of that community, there may be no offence. But, on the other hand, where the author uses language which shows malice and is bound to annoy the members of the community so as to degrade them in the eyes of the other classes, he would, in our opinion, be promoting feelings of enmity and hatred.

7. The two books have been translated into English and the whole trend thereof and the offending passages have been laid before us. There can be no doubt whatsoever that they are obnoxious and highly objectionable and they clearly come within the mischief of Secs. 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has: entirely failed to show that the books did not contain matters which promoted feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes, or which did not insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of the Sikhs. The order of the State Government forfeiting the two books appears to us to have been eminently just and proper.

8. We, therefore, dismiss this application and direct that the applicant do pay costs of the State of Uttar Pradesh which we assess at the total figures of rupees five hundred—Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two hundred) being the expenses of the translation and rupees three hundred as fees of Mr. J.R Bhatt, the Assistant Government Advocate. Costs should be paid up within two months from today.

9. Application dismissed.