JUDGMENT
S.K. Sharma, J.
1. The applicant, an Advocate by profession, in the instant application seeks to set aside the declaration made about a pamphlet referred at item 15 in the notification issued by State of Rajasthan under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated April 22, 1993.
2. Section 95 of CrPC enables the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, after stating grounds for its opinion, if any newspaper, book or document contains:-
“(i) any seditious matter punishable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), or
(ii) any matter promoting enmity between different classes or at places of worship, punishable under Section 153B IPC, or
(iii) any matter containing obscene books or obscene objects, punishable under Section 292 or 293 IPC, or
(iv) any matter which amounts to maliciously insulting the religion or religious beliefs of any class punishable under Section 295A IPC, to declare every copy thereof forfeited to the State Government. Thereupon any police officer may seize such newspaper, book or document wherever found in India. Any Magistrate is also authorised to issue a search warrant for its seizure.”
3. Under Section 96(1) CrPC, any person having any interest in such publication may apply to the High Court to set aside such order on the ground that it did not contain such matter as is referred to in Section 95. In order to determine whether a particular document falls within the ambit of Section 95, the writing has to be considered as a whole in a fair and liberal spirit without dwelling too much upon isolated passage or upon a strong word here and there. An endeavour should be made to gather the general effect that the whole composition would have on the mind of the public. A common sense interpretation must be given to the document complained of and the question to be answered always being what impression will the document or words have on a man of ordinary common sense (vide State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi AIR 1952 SC 329). In Harnam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 1662) it was indicated that when an application is made under Section 96 to have an order of forfeiture set aside on the ground that the matter published does not fall within the mischief of Section 153A or 295A IPC, it is for the party to show that the order was improper.
4. Having scanned the impugned notification on the touchstone of settled legal position we notice that as many as seventeen pamphlets were ordered to be forfeited by the State Government on the ground that they came within the mischief of Sections 153A, 153-B and 295-A IPC. The State Government in the notification stated grounds of its opinion, since the onus to rebut the prima facie opinion of the Government lies on the application, it is incumbent on the applicant to place on record the pamphlet referred at item No. 15 of the impugned notification. But the applicant neither appeared nor filed the pamphlet to show that it did not offend Section 153-A, 153B and 295A IPC and thus failed to discharge the burden that the matter published did not fall within the mischief of said sections.
5. Resultantly instant application being devoid of merit stands dismissed.