{"id":51051,"date":"1961-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961"},"modified":"2017-01-01T02:38:36","modified_gmt":"2016-12-31T21:08:36","slug":"harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961","title":{"rendered":"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1662, \t\t 1962 SCR (2) 371<\/div>\n
Author: A Sarkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHARNAM DAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/04\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1662\t\t  1962 SCR  (2) 371\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1972 SC2086\t (9)\n F\t    1977 SC 202\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\nHigh  Court, Powers of-Forfeiture of seditious\tPublications\nOrder Passed by Government-Application to High Court to\t set\naside  order-Grounds of opinion not stated in order-  Order,\nif  liable to be set aside-Code of Criminal Procedure,\t1898\n(Act V of 1898), ss. 99A, 99B, 99C, 99D.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent passed an order under s. 99A of the Code  of\nCriminal  Procedure  forfeiting\t two books  written  by\t the\nappellant  as  in  its opinion\tthey  contained\t matter\t the\npublication  of which was punishable under s. 153A and\t295A\nof  the\t Indian\t Penal Code.  The order did  not  state\t the\ngrounds\t on which the respondent had formed this opinion  as\nwas  required by s. 99A.  The appellant applied to the\tHigh\nCourt  under  s.  99B of the Code to set  aside\t the  order.\nSection\t 99D of the Code provided that the High Court  shall\nset  aside the order of forfeiture if it was  not  satisfied\nthat the book contained seditious or other matter of such  a\nnature as was referred to in sub-s. (1) of s. 99A.  The High\nCourt was of the view that it could not set aside the  order\nunder  s. 99D for the reason that the order did not set\t out\nthe  grounds on which the Government had formed its  opinion\nand that its duty was only to see whether the books in\tfact\ncame  within  the  mischief of the  offence  charged.\tUpon\nexamining  the books for itself the High Court came  to\t the\nconclusion  that  their contents were obnoxious\t and  highly\nobjectionable and dismissed the application.\nHeld (Per Gajendragadkar, Sarkar, Wanchoo and Ayyangar,\t jj.\nDas Gupta, J. contra) that on the failure of the  respondent\nto set out the grounds of its opinion as required by s.\t 99A\nof  the Code the High Court should have set aside the  order\nunder  s. 99D.\tIt is the duty of the High Court under\tthat\nsection\t to set aside the order of forfeiture if it  is\t not\nsatisfied  that the grounds on which the  Government  formed\nits opinion could justify that opinion.\t Where no grounds of\nits  opinion are given at all the High Court must set  aside\nthe  order for it cannot then be satisfied that the  grounds\ngiven by the Government justified the\torder.\nArun Ranjan Ghose v. State of West Benaal, (1955) 59  C.W.N.\n495, approved.\nPremi Khem Rai v. Chief Secretary, A.I.R. (1951) Raj.\tII3,\nN.   Veerabrahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R.  (1959)\nA.  Pr. 572 and Baba Khalil Ahmed v. State of U. P.,  A.I.R.\n(1960) All. 715, disapproved.\n488\nPer  Das Gupta, J.-The High Court had no power to set  aside\nthe order on the ground of failure of the Government to\t set\nout the grounds of its opinion in the order.  The duty\tcast\non  the High Court is not to see whether the grounds  stated\nby the Government for forming its opinion are correct but to\nsee whether the opinion formed is correct; this can only  be\ndone  by examining the books.  Section 99B has\tlimited\t the\ngrounds\t on  which relief can be asked for to  one  and\t one\nonly, viz., that the books do not -contain any objectionable\nmatter.\t  It was not permissible for courts to add  to\tthat\nground.\nBaijnath v. Emperor  A.I.R. (1925) All. 195, Premi Khem\t Raj\nv. Chief Secretary, A.I.R. (1951) Raj. 113, N.\tVeerabrahmam\nv. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I. R. 1959 A. Pr. 572 and Baba\nKhalil\tAhmed  v. State of U. P., A.I.R.  (1960)  All.\t715,\napproved.\nArun  Ranjan  Ghose v. The State of West Bengal,  (1959)  59\nC.W.N. 495, disapproved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 74  of
\n1961.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nMay  7, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal  Misc.
\nNo. 2006 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n
Veda Vyas, S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
\nG.C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
\n1961.\tApril 27.  The Judgment of  Gajendragadkar,  Sarkar,
\nWanchoo\t and Ayyangar, JJ., was delivered by Sarkar, J.\t Das
\nGupta, J., delivered a separate Judgment.
\nSARKAR, J.-The only question that was argued in this  appeal
\nis substantially one of construction of s.   99D of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant was the author of two books in  Hindi  called
\nSikh Mat Khandan Part 1 and Bhoomika Nazam Sikh Mat  Khandan
\nwhich he had published in April 1953.  On July 30, 1953, the
\nGovernment of Uttar Pradesh, the respondent in this  appeal,
\nmade  an  order under s. 99A of that Code  forfeiting  these
\nbooks  which  were thereupon seized and\t taken\taway.\tThat
\norder,\tso far as material, was in the following terms:\t “In
\nexercise of its powers conferred by section 99A of the\tCode
\nof Criminal Procedure……… the
\n489<\/span>
\nGovernment  is\tpleased to declare the\tbooks  forfeited  to
\nGovernment on the ground that the said books contain matter,
\nthe  publication of which is punishable under section  153-A
\nand  295-A of the Indian Penal Code.” It is the validity  of
\nthis order that is challenged in the present appeal.
\nSection\t 99A  under  which the order was  made,\t so  far  as
\nrelevant, is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where any newspaper, or book or any  document
\n\t      appears to the State Government to contain any
\n\t      seditious matter or any matter which  promotes
\n\t      or  is intended to promote feelings of  enmity
\n\t      or  hatred  between different classes  of\t the
\n\t      citizens of India or which is deliberately and
\n\t      maliciously intended to outrage the  religious
\n\t      feelings\tof any such class by  insulting\t the
\n\t      religion\tor  the\t religious  belief  of\tthat
\n\t      class,   that  is\t to  say,  any\tmatter\t the
\n\t      publication  of  which  is  punishable   under
\n\t      section  124A or section 153A or section\t295A
\n\t      of the Indian Penal Code, the State Government
\n\t      may,  by notification in the Official  Gazette
\n\t      stating  the grounds of its  opinion,  declare
\n\t      every  copy  of such book to be  forfeited  to
\n\t      Government
\nTwo  things appear clearly from the terms of  this  section.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  first thing is that an order under it can be made\tonly
\nwhen  the Government forms a certain opinion.  That  opinion
\nis that the document concerning which the order is  proposed
\nto be made, contains “any matter the publication of which is
\npunishable  under  section 124A or section 153A\t or  section
\n295A  of the Penal Code.” Section 124A deals with  seditious
\nmatters,  s.  153A  with matters  prompting  enmity  between
\ndifferent  classes  of\tIndian citizens\t and  s.  295A\twith
\nmatters\t insulting the religion or religious beliefs of\t any
\nclass  of such citizens.  The other thing that appears\tfrom
\nthe section is that the Government has to state the  grounds
\nof  its\t opinion.  The-order made in this  case,  no  doubt,
\nstated that in the Government’s opinion the books  contained
\nmatters\t the publication of which was punishable  under\t ss.
\n153A  and  295A\t of the Penal Code.  It\t did  not,  however,
\nstate,\tas it should have, the grounds of that opinion.\t  So
\nit is
\n490<\/span>
\nnot  known which communities were alienated from each  other
\nor whose religious beliefs had been wounded according to the
\nGovernment,  nor  why  the  Government\tthought\t that\tsuch
\nalienation or offence to religion had been caused.
\nNow  s.\t 99B gives the person interested in  the  books,  or
\ndocuments  forfeited, a right to apply to the High Court  to
\nset aside the order made under s. 99A, and s. 99D  specifies
\nthe  High Court’s duty on such an application being made  to
\nit.    These  two  sections  will  have\t to  be\t  especially
\nconsidered  in this case and so they along with s. 99C,\t are
\nset out below.\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.    99B.  Any person having any interest  in
\n\t      any  newspaper,  book or\tother  document,  in
\n\t      respect  of which an order of  forfeiture\t has
\n\t      been  made under section 99A, may, within\t two
\n\t      months  from the date of such order, apply  to
\n\t      the High Court to set aside such order on\t the
\n\t      ground that the issue of the newspaper, or the
\n\t      book  or other document, in respect  of  which
\n\t      the  order  was  made,  did  not\tcontain\t any
\n\t      seditious or other matter of such a nature  as
\n\t      is  referred to in sub-section (1) of  section
\n\t      99A.\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.    99C.   Every such application  shall  be
\n\t      heard and determined by a Special Bench of the
\n\t      High Court composed of three Judges.
\n\t      S.    99D. (1) On receipt of the\tapplication,
\n\t      the   Special  Bench  shall,  if\tit  is\t not
\n\t      satisfied that the issue of the newspaper,  or
\n\t      the  book\t or other document,  in\t respect  of
\n\t      which the application has been made, contained
\n\t      seditious or other matter of such a nature  as
\n\t      is  referred to in sub-section (1) of  section
\n\t      99A, set aside the order of forfeiture.
\n\t      We  think it fairly clear from these  sections
\n\t      that the ground on which an application can be
\n\t      made  under  s. 99B is the  ground  which,  if
\n\t      established,  would require the High Court  to
\n\t      set aside the order under S. 99D.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  appellant  bad moved the High  Court.  at
\n\t      Allahabad under s. 99B to set aside the  order
\n\t      of forfeiture of his books.  It seems to\thave
\n\t      been  contended  in the High  Court  that\t the
\n\t      order of forfeiture should be set aside on the
\n\t      ground that the grounds of the
\n\t      491<\/span>
\n\t      Government’s  opinion  had  not  been  stated.
\n\t      With regard to this contention, the High Court
\n\t      observed, “The requirement to state the ground
\n\t      is mandatory.  A mere citation of words of the
\n\t      section will not do.  But as has been held  by
\n\t      a\t Special Bench of this Court in Baijnath  v.
\n\t      Emperor (A.I.R. 1925 All. 195), with which  we
\n\t      respectfully agree, the High Court in view  of
\n\t      the  provisions  of  s. 99D  of  the  Code  of
\n\t      Criminal\t ‘Procedure   is   precluded\tfrom
\n\t      considering any other point than the  question
\n\t      whether in fact the document comes within\t the
\n\t      mischief of the offence charged.” In this view
\n\t      of  the matter the High Court refused  to\t set
\n\t      aside the order on account of the omission  to
\n\t      state  the grounds of the opinion.   The\tHigh
\n\t      Court then proceeded to examine the books\t for
\n\t      itself  and  found that  their  contents\twere
\n\t      “obnoxious   and\thighly\tobjectionable”\t and
\n\t      dismissed\t the application observing that\t the
\n\t      appellant\t had “entirely failed to  show\tthat
\n\t      the  books  did  not  contain  matters   which
\n\t      promoted feelings of enmity and hatred between
\n\t      different\t classes,  or which  did  not  (sic)
\n\t      insult  or attempt to insult the\treligion  or
\n\t      religious beliefs of the Sikhs”.\tThe  present
\n\t      appeal  arises out of this order of  the\tHigh
\n\t      Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  High Court was of the view that its\tduty
\n\t      under s. 99D was only to see “whether in\tfact
\n\t      the document comes within the mischief of\t the
\n\t      offence charged”.\t It thought that a  document
\n\t      would  be within the mischief of\tthe  offence
\n\t      charged  if, in its own opinion, it  contained
\n\t      matters  the  publication of  which  would  be
\n\t      punishable under either s. 124A, or s. 153A or
\n\t      s. 295A of the Penal Code as mentioned in\t the
\n\t      order  of\t forfeiture,  irrespective  of\t the
\n\t      Government’s    opinion\ton    the    matter.
\n\t      Otherwise,  it  seems to us,  the\t High  Court
\n\t      could not uphold the order for the reason that
\n\t      in  its view the books offended the Sikhs\t and
\n\t      the  Sikh religion in spite of the  fact\tthat
\n\t      there  is nothing to show that the  Government
\n\t      thought  that the books had that effect.\t The
\n\t      same  view  appears  to  have  been  taken  in
\n\t      certain other cases, namely, Premi Khem Raj v.
\n\t      Chief Secretary (1), N. Veerabrahmam v.  State
\n\t      of Andhra Pradesh (2) and Baba Khalil Ahmed v.
\n\t      State of U.P. (3).\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)  A.I.R. (1951) Raj. 113. (2) A.I.R  (1959)
\n\t      A.P. 572.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       (3) A.I.R. (1960) All. 715.\n<\/p>\n
\t      492<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Apparently, it was thought in these cases that
\n\t      the   words   “if\t  it   is   not\t   satisfied
\n\t      that………   the  book………   contained
\n\t      seditious or other matter of such a nature  as
\n\t      is  referred to in sub-section (1) of  section
\n\t      99A” in s. 99D meant, not so satisfied for any
\n\t      reason whatsoever irrespective of the  reasons
\n\t      on  which\t the Government formed\tits  opinion
\n\t      about  it.   We  are  unable  to\taccept\tthis
\n\t      construction of s. 99D.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  question is what do the words “matter  of
\n\t      such a nature as is referred to in sub-section
\n\t      (1) of section 99A” appearing in s. 99D  mean?
\n\t      Do they mean any matter of that nature as\t the
\n\t      High  Court  thought?  Or do  they  mean\tonly
\n\t      those  on\t which the order of  forfeiture\t was
\n\t      based,  that is, those which for\tthe  reasons
\n\t      stated  by  it, the  Government  thought\twere
\n\t      punishable under one or more of sections 124A,
\n\t      153A  and 295A of the Penal Code mentioned  by
\n\t      it?.  It\tseems to us that the latter  is\t the
\n\t      correct  view  and follows inevitably  if\t ss.
\n\t      99A,  99B and 99D are read together,  as\tthey
\n\t      must.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Now s. 99D is concerned with setting aside  an
\n\t      order.   That order is one made under s.\t99A.
\n\t      An  order under that section can be made\tonly
\n\t      when  certain  things  have  appeared  to\t the
\n\t      Government  and  the Government has  formed  a
\n\t      certain opinion.\tThe section further requires
\n\t      the  Government  to state the grounds  of\t its
\n\t      opinion.\tIt is this order, that is, the order
\n\t      based  on the grounds stated, which the  party
\n\t      affected\thas been given by s. 99B the,  right
\n\t      to move the High Court to set aside.  It would
\n\t      follow  that all that s. 99B can\trequire\t the
\n\t      party.  to  do  is to  show  that\t  order\t was
\n\t      improper.\t  Whether that order was  proper  or
\n\t      not would, of course, depend onlyon the merits
\n\t      of the grounds on which it was based;  whether
\n\t      another  order to the same effect\t could\thave
\n\t      been made on other grounds is irrelevant,\t for
\n\t      that would not show the validity of the  order
\n\t      actually made; that order would be bad if\t the
\n\t      grounds on which it is made do not support it.
\n\t      Two  orders,  though both saying that  a\tpub-
\n\t      lication\tcontains  matter which\toffends\t the
\n\t      same  section of the Penal Code cannot be\t the
\n\t      same or an identical order if the reasons\t why
\n\t      they are considered so to
\n\t      493<\/span>
\n\t      offend the section of the Penal Code concerned
\n\t      are different.  Now s. 99B says that a  person
\n\t      affected by the order may move the High  Court
\n\t      to  set it aside on the ground that  the\tbook
\n\t      “did not contain any seditious or other matter
\n\t      of  such\ta nature as is referred to  in\tsub-
\n\t      section (1) of section 99A”.  The matter\tmen-
\n\t      tioned  here  must, for  the  reasons  stated,
\n\t      refer  only to such matter on which for the
\n\t      grounds stated by it, the Government’s
\n\t      opinion has been based.\n<\/p>\n
\t      We  proceed  now to a. 99D.  It  is  concerned
\n\t      with  the same order of forfeiture.  An  order
\n\t      contemplated   by\t s.  99D  is  made   on\t  an
\n\t      application  under  s. 99B.  That\t order\tmust
\n\t      therefore\t accept\t or reject  the\t grounds  on
\n\t      which  the application under s. 99B was  made.
\n\t      These  grounds, as we have seen, are  confined
\n\t      to challenging the propriety of the grounds on
\n\t      which  the Government’s opinion  resulting  in
\n\t      the order, was based.  The words which we have
\n\t      earlier quoted from s. 99B occur substantially
\n\t      in the same form in s. 99D.  The scope of\t the
\n\t      two  sections is identical.  The common  words
\n\t      occurring\t in them must, therefore,  have\t the
\n\t      same meaning in both.  They must hence, in  s.
\n\t      99D  also mean such matters on which  for\t the
\n\t      grounds stated by it the Government’s  opinion
\n\t      was  based.   They cannot mean,  as  the\tHigh
\n\t      Court   thought,\t any   matter\t whatsoever,
\n\t      irrespective  of the Government’s reasons\t for
\n\t      making  the order, which in the  High
\n\t      Court’s opinion would have justified it.
\n\t      This  view of the matter also explains why  s.
\n\t      99A  requires  the  Government  to  state\t the
\n\t      grounds  of  its opinion.\t The reason  was  to
\n\t      enable  the High Court to set aside the  order
\n\t      of  forfeiture if it was not satisfied of\t the
\n\t      propriety\t of those grounds.  If it  were\t not
\n\t      so,  the grounds of the  Government’s  opinion
\n\t      would  serve  no purpose at all.\t This  would
\n\t      specially\t be  so as s. 99G provides  that  an
\n\t      order  of\t forfeiture  cannot  be\t called\t  in
\n\t      question\t except\t in  accordance\t  with\t the
\n\t      provisions  of s. 99B.  If the order could  be
\n\t      upheld,  as  the\tHigh  Court  seems  to\thave
\n\t      thought, on grounds other than those on  which
\n\t      the Government based its opinion, there  would
\n\t      have been no need to provide
\n\t      63<\/span>
\n\t      494<\/span>
\n\t      that  the grounds of the Government’s  opinion
\n\t      should be stated; such grounds would then have
\n\t      been wholly irrelevant in judging the validity
\n\t      of the order.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  acceptance of the interpretation  put  by
\n\t      the  High Court would lead to a result  which,
\n\t      in  our view, would be wholly anomalous.\t The
\n\t      order  of\t forfeiture  with which\t s.  99D  is
\n\t      concerned\t is indisputably an order  under  s.
\n\t      99A.   Now,  an order under  that\t section  is
\n\t      essentially an order of the Government and  of
\n\t      no one else.  Take a case where the Government
\n\t      making  the  order states the grounds  of\t its
\n\t      opinion on which the order is based.   Suppose
\n\t      the  Government  says that the  expression  of
\n\t      view  A  in  the book  concerned\toffends\t the
\n\t      religious\t beliefs of community X. Now  assume
\n\t      that  in an application made to set it  aside,
\n\t      the  High Court was not satisfied that view  A
\n\t      could  offend  community X  but  thought\tthat
\n\t      another  expression of view in the  same\tbook
\n\t      which  we will call B, offended the  religious
\n\t      beliefs\tof   a\tdifferent   community,\t say
\n\t      community Y. If in such a case the High  Court
\n\t      upheld  the order, which, if the view  of\t the
\n\t      Court below is right, it could do, there would
\n\t      really  be an order of forfeiture made by\t the
\n\t      High Court and not by the Government,  because
\n\t      the  Government in stating the grounds of\t its
\n\t      opinion  had  not, since it did  not  say\t so,
\n\t      thought that view B could offend the religious
\n\t      beliefs of community Y. We think it impossible
\n\t      that the sections concerned contemplated\tsuch
\n\t      a\t result;  the Code nowhere provides  for  an
\n\t      order  of\t forfeiture being made by  the\tHigh
\n\t      Court.   We  are, therefore, of  opinion\tthat
\n\t      under s. 99D it is the duty of the High  Court
\n\t      to  set aside an order of forfeiture if it  is
\n\t      not  satisfied that the grounds on  which\t the
\n\t      Government  formed its opinion that the  books
\n\t      contained\t matters  the publication  of  which
\n\t      would  be punishable under any one or more  of
\n\t      ss. 124A, 153A or 295A of the Penal Code could
\n\t      justify  that opinion.  It is not its duty  to
\n\t      do  more\tand to find for itself\twhether\t the
\n\t      book contained any such matter whatsoever.
\n\t      What then is to happen when the Government did
\n\t      not state the grounds of its opinion?  In such
\n\t      a case
\n\t      495<\/span>
\n\t      if the High Court upheld the order, it may  be
\n\t      that  it would have done so for reasons  which
\n\t      the  Government did not have in  contemplation
\n\t      at all.  If the High Court did that, it  would
\n\t      really have made an order of forfeiture itself
\n\t      and  not\tupheld\tsuch an order  made  by\t the
\n\t      Government.  This, as already stated, the High
\n\t      Court  has  no power to do under s.  99D.\t  It
\n\t      seems  clear to us, therefore, that in such  a
\n\t      case  the High Court must set aside the  order
\n\t      under s. 99D, for it cannot then be  satisfied
\n\t      that  the\t grounds  given\t by  the  Government
\n\t      justified the order.  You cannot be  satisfied
\n\t      about a thing which you do not know.  This  is
\n\t      the  view that was taken in Arun Ranjan  Ghose
\n\t      v.  State\t of West Bengal (1) and\t we  are  in
\n\t      complete agreement with it.  The present is  a
\n\t      case  of this kind.  We think that it was\t the
\n\t      duty  of\tthe High Court under s. 99D  to\t set
\n\t      aside  the  order of forfeiture made  in\tthis
\n\t      case.\n<\/p>\n
\t      We accordingly allow the appeal and set  aside
\n\t      the  Government’s\t order of  forfeiture  dated
\n\t      July 30, 1953.  The appellant will be entitled
\n\t      to a return of all books, documents and things
\n\t      seized under that order.\n<\/p>\n
\t      DAS GUPTA, J.-By a notification dated July 30,
\n\t      1953 the Uttar Pradesh Government acting under
\n\t      s.  99A  of  the Code  of\t Criminal  Procedure
\n\t      declared the books “Sikh Mat Khandan, Part  1”
\n\t      and  “Bhoomika Nazam Sikh Mat  Khandan”  which
\n\t      had been published by the appellant Harnam Das
\n\t      in April 1953, forfeited to government on\t the
\n\t      ground that these books contained matters\t the
\n\t      publication  of which was punishable under  s.
\n\t      153A  and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.\t The
\n\t      High Court held on an examination of the books
\n\t      that they clearly came within the mischief  of
\n\t      s. 153A and s. 295A of the Indian Penal  Code.
\n\t      Accordingly  it  held that the  order  of\t the
\n\t      State Government forfeiting the two books\t was
\n\t      eminently\t just  and proper and in  that\tview
\n\t      dismissed the application.\n<\/p>\n
\t      One argument appears to have been raised\tthat
\n\t      the order of forfeiture should be set aside as
\n\t      the notification by which the government\tmade
\n\t      the declaration
\n\t      (1)   (1955) 59 C.W.N. 495.\n<\/p>\n
\t      496<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      of forfeiture did not state the grounds of the
\n\t      government’s  opinion as required by  s.\t99A.
\n\t      The High Court rejected this argument being of
\n\t      opinion  that in view of the provisions of  s.
\n\t      99D of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High
\n\t      Court was “precluded from consideration of any
\n\t      other point than the question whether in\tfact
\n\t      the document comes within the mischief of\t the
\n\t      offence charged.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      It   is  quite  clear  that   the\t  government
\n\t      notification did not state the grounds of\t the
\n\t      opinion  formed by the government\t that  these
\n\t      documents contained matters the publication of
\n\t      which was punishable under s. 153A and s. 295A
\n\t      of the Indian Penal Code.\t The question raised
\n\t      before us is whether the High Court was  right
\n\t      in  rejecting the argument that the  order  of
\n\t      forfeiture  should be set aside on the  ground
\n\t      that grounds of the government’s opinion\twere
\n\t      not  stated in the government notification  as
\n\t      required by s. 99A.  The view which  prevailed
\n\t      with  the\t learned judges in respect  of\tthis
\n\t      question was in accord with what had been held
\n\t      by  the same High Court in an earlier case  of
\n\t      Baijnath\tv. Emperor (1) and by the  Rajasthan
\n\t      High   Court  in\tPremi  Khem  Raj  v.   Chief
\n\t      Secretary\t (2).\tThe same view has  later  on
\n\t      been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
\n\t      N. Veerabrahmam v. State Of Andhra Pradesh (3)
\n\t      and  by  the Allahabad High Court in  a  later
\n\t      decision\tin Baba Khalil Ahmad v. State of  U.
\n\t      P.  (4). A contrary view appears to have\tbeen
\n\t      taken  by\t the  Calcutta High  Court  in\tArun
\n\t      Ranjan Ghose v. The State of West Bengal (5).
\n\t      The  material  portion of s. 99A is  in  these
\n\t      words:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  any  newspaper, or book……  or\t any
\n\t      document……  appears to the  Government  to
\n\t      contain  any  seditious matter or\t any  matter
\n\t      which  promotes  or  is  intended\t to  promote
\n\t      feelings of enmity or hatred between different
\n\t      classes  of the citizens of India or which  is
\n\t      deliberately   and  maliciously  intended\t  to
\n\t      outrage  the  religious feelings of  any\tsuch
\n\t      class   by  insulting  the  religion  or\t the
\n\t      religious belief of that
\n\t      (1)   A.I.R. (1925) All. 195.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   A.I.R. (1951) Raj. 113.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)   A.I.R. (1950) An.  Pr. 572.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (4)   A.I.R. (1960) All, 715.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (5) (1955) 59 C.W.N. 495.\n<\/p>\n
\t      497<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      class,   that  is\t to  say,  any\tmatter\t the
\n\t      publication  of  which  is  punishable   under
\n\t      section  124A or section 153A or section\t295A
\n\t      of the Indian Penal Code, the State Government
\n\t      may,  by notification in the Official  Gazette
\n\t      stating\tthe   grounds\tof   its    opinion,
\n\t      declare ……  every copy of such  book……
\n\t      to be forfeited to  the\tgovernment.”\n<\/p>\n
It   is\t clear therefore that before any government makes  a
\ndeclaration  forfeiting a book under the provisions of\tthis
\nsection\t it  has first to be of opinion that the  book\tdoes
\ncontain\t a  matter the publication of  which  is  punishable
\nunder  s.  124A or s. 153A or s. 295A of  the  Indian  Penal
\nCode.  Once it forms such an opinion the government has\t the
\npower  to declare the book forfeited.  The section  requires
\nthat  this  must be done by a notification in  the  official
\ngazette and in that notification the government is  required
\nto state the grounds on which it formed the opinion.
\nThe  legislature however did not make such an order made  by
\nthe  government\t immune from any attack.  In s. 99B  it\t has
\nprovided the means by which the aggrieved person may  obtain
\nrelief against the order if in fact the government was wrong
\nin  its\t opinion and the book did not contain a\t matter\t the
\npublication of which is punishable under s. 124A, or s. 153A
\nor  s.\t295A  of the Indian Penal Code.\t  Section  99B\truns
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Any  person having any interest in any  news-<\/p>\n
\t      paper,  book or other document, in respect  of
\n\t      which  an\t order of forfeiture has  been\tmade
\n\t      under s. 99A, may, within two months from\t the
\n\t      date of such order, apply to the High Court to
\n\t      set  aside such order on the ground  that\t the
\n\t      issue  of the newspaper, or the book or  other
\n\t\t\t    document,  in respect of which the\torder  ‘wa
\ns
\n\t      made,  did not contain any seditious or  other\n<\/p>\n
\t      -matter of such a nature as is referred to  in
\n\t      sub-section (1) of s. 99A.”\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 99D provides that if after hearing the\t application
\nthe  High  Court  is not satisfied that\t the  issue  of\t the
\ndocument  in question contains any seditious matter  or\t any
\nother  matter  referred to in s. 99A, that is  to  say,\t any
\nmatter the publication of which is
\n498<\/span>
\npunishable under s. 124A or s. 153A or s. 295A of the Indian
\nPenal  Code  the  High Court shall set aside  the  order  of
\nforfeiture.   The necessary result of the provision also  is
\nthat  if  the  High  Court is satisfied\t that  the  book  in
\nquestion  contains  matter  the\t publication  of  which\t  is
\npunishable under s. 124A or s. 153A or s. 295A of the Indian
\nPenal  Code,  the High Court will refuse to  set  aside\t the
\norder of forfeiture.\n<\/p>\n
It has to be noticed that s. 99B in providing for relief  to
\na person aggrieved by an order of forfeiture has limited the
\ngrounds\t on which relief can be applied for to one  and\t one
\nonly, viz., that the issue of the newspaper, or the book  or
\nother document, in respect of which the order was made, does
\nnot  contain any seditious matter or other matter of such  a
\nnature as is referred to in sub-section (1) of s. 99A.
\nThe  appellant’s contention that the High Court should\talso
\nexamine the notification to find out whether the  government
\nhad stated the grounds of its own opinion as required by  s.
\n99A  and set aside the order of forfeiture if it finds\tthat
\nthis  requirement  has note been fulfilled seeks to  add  an
\nadditional ground on which an application can be made  under
\ns.  99B and relief can be given by the High Court  under  s.
\n99D.   The  question is: Can that be done?  It\tis  well  to
\nrecognise  that just as a right of appeal is a\tcreature  of
\nstatute the right to apply for setting aside an order  which
\nis  really in the nature of an appeal-is equally a  creature
\nof statute and when the legislature creates such a right  by
\na  statute it may at its option make the right unlimited  or
\nmay limit it in any manner it likes.  It is settled law that
\nno  Court  can add to or enlarge the grounds for  appeal  as
\nlaid down in the statute creating the appeal.
\nThe position is exactly the same when the statute creates  a
\nright to seek relief by way of application and no court\t can
\nadd  to\t the grounds on which relief can be  sought  if\t the
\nstatute\t creating the right to obtain relief is\t limited  to
\none  or\t more  specified  grounds.   It\t is  interesting  to
\nremember  in this connection the right to apply\t for  review
\ngranted by O. 47 r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  After
\nspecifying
\n499<\/span>
\nsome  grounds  on  which a review can be  applied  for,\t the
\nlegislature  added  a further ground in the words  “for\t any
\nother  sufficient  reason”.  The  proper  interpretation  of
\nthese  words “for any other sufficient reason”\thas  engaged
\nthe  anxious  consideration of the courts and  in  1922\t the
\nPrivy  Council\tafter a review of the  numerous\t cases\tlaid
\ndown, the rule that “for any other sufficient reason”  means
\na  reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to  those
\nspecified  immediately previously.  If the correct  position
\nhad been that the court might add to the ground for a review
\nwhenever  it thought fit, all the discussion as regards\t the
\ninterpretation\tof “for any other sufficient  reason”  would
\nhave been meaningless and unnecessary.
\nIndeed the position in law that the courts cannot add to the
\ngrounds\t to which the legislature has limited the  right  of
\nrelief\tis so very clear and unassailable that\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the appellant did not like to suggest  that  a
\nground\tcan be added.  To overcome this difficulty that\t the
\ncourts\tcannot add to the grounds of relief specified in  s.
\n99B  and s. 99D, an ingenious argument has been put  forward
\nthat in order that the High Court can give proper relief  on
\nthe  very  ground  mentioned  in s. 99B and  s.\t 99D  it  is
\nessential  that\t the  government’s order  should  state\t the
\ngrounds\t of  its  opinion.  The steps of  the  argument\t may
\nshortly\t be  stated  thus:-The\tgovernment  has\t formed\t  an
\nopinion.  The High Court has to see that opinion is correct.
\nIn  order to do this the High Court must know  what  weighed
\nwith  the government in coming to its  opinion.\t  Therefore,
\nwithout\t the  grounds of the Government’s opinion  the\tHigh
\nCourt cannot be satisfied within the meaning of s. 99D\tthat
\nthe  issue of the newspaper contained the matter  complained
\nof.\n<\/p>\n
The  fallacy  of  this syllogistic process  is\tin  the\t un-
\nsoundness of the premises that in order to determine whether
\nthe  government’s opinion is correct or not the\t High  Court
\nmust  know  what  weighed with\tthe  government.   When\t the
\napplication is heard by the High Court and it has to come to
\na  conclusion whether it is or it is not satisfied that\t the
\nissue of the newspaper,
\n500<\/span>
\nor  the\t book  or  other  document  does  contain  a  matter
\nmentioned  in  s. 99A, the one and only way of coming  to  a
\nconclusion appears to me to be to read the newspaper, or the
\nbook  or other document.  Arguments of counsel might  be  of
\nassistance;  if\t the government has stated its\tgrounds\t for
\ncoming\tto  its\t opinion,  that would  also  help;  but\t the
\nultimate  responsibility  of deciding whether or not  to  be
\nsatisfied  that the issue of newspaper contains\t matters  as
\nmentioned in s. 99A can only be discharged by the High Court
\nby reading the document in question.
\nIt  has been suggested that when s. 99B and s. 99D uses\t the
\nwords “any seditious or other matter of such a nature as  is
\nreferred  to in sub-s. (1) of s. 99A”, they mean only  those
\nmatters\t  on  which  the  Government  based  the  order\t  of
\nforfeiture; so it is urged, unless the Government stated the
\nground\tof its opinion, it will be impossible for the  Court
\nto decide the question under s. 99D.\n<\/p>\n
I confess I do not think it reasonably possible to  conceive
\nof a case, where an order under section 99A will not mention
\nthe particular matter referred to in s. 99A. (1) The mention
\nof the particular matter out of the several matters referred
\nto  in section 99A which in its opinion is contained in\t the
\ndocument  does not however involve the statement of  reasons
\nfor  forming the opinion.  Suppose a Government states\tthat
\nin its opinion the document contains seditious matters.\t  It
\ndoes  not  cease to be a complete statement  on\t this  point
\nmerely\tbecause the reason for forming the opinion  are\t not
\nalso stated.  The formation of the opinion that one or\tmore
\nof the matter,% referred to in the section are contained  in
\na  document and the statement that such an opinion has\tbeen
\nformed are quite distinct from the statement of the  reasons
\nfor forming the opinion.  It appears to me clear that where,
\nas  in\tthe  present case the Government  order\t contains  a
\nstatement  of  the particular matter or matters out  of\t the
\nseveral matters, referred to in s. 99A, viz., any  seditious
\nmatter\tor  any\t matter which promotes\tor  is\tintended  to
\npromote\t feelings  of  enmity or  hatred  between  different
\nclasses of the citizens of India or
\n501<\/span>
\nwhich  is deliberately and maliciously intended\t to  outrage
\nthe  religious feelings of any such class by  insulting\t the
\nreligion or the religious beliefs of that class, that is  to
\nsay, any matter the publication of which is punishable under
\nsection\t 124A or section 153A or section 295A of the  Indian
\nPenal  Code” which in its opinion the document contains,  no
\ndifficulty  can possibly arise from the fact that the  Court
\nhas not got before it Government’s grounds for forming\tsuch
\nopinion.\n<\/p>\n
But,  asks the appellant, why was it necessary then for\t the
\nlegislature to require in s. 99A that the Government  should
\nstate the grounds of its opinion when notifying the order of
\nforfeiture?  The real reason, it is urged, was to enable the
\nHigh  Court to set aside the order of forfeiture if  it\t was
\nnot  satisfied\tof  the\t propriety  of\tthose  grounds,\t and
\nnecessarily also when no grounds were stated.  If that\twere
\ncorrect, it was reasonable to expect the legislature to make
\nthe  necessary\tprovision in a. 99B that an order  could  be
\nchallenged  on\tthe ground that the grounds of\tthe  opinion
\nwere not stated, and consequential provisions in s. 99D.   I
\ncan  see no justification for reading into  these  sections-
\nsection 99A and section 99D-words which are not there, in an
\nattempt to understand why s. 99A contains such a requirement
\nfor  statement of grounds of the opinion.  There can  be  no
\ndoubt that this is a very salutary provision that Government
\nshould record the grounds of its opinion.  Such a  provision
\ndiminishes the risk of government making an arbitrary  order
\nof  forfeiture.\t It was therefore a question of\t legislative
\npolicy\tfor the legislature to require that  the  government
\nshould state its opinion.  To say that there could have been
\nno reason for including such a requirement in s. 99A  unless
\nthe  legislature  intended the High Court  to  interfere  if
\ngrounds\t of the opinion were not stated, is, in my  opinion,
\nwholly unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
It  seems clear to me that the duty cast by section  99D  on
\nthe  judges  of the High Court is not to see  whether  in  a
\nparticular case the grounds stated by 64
\n502<\/span>
\nthe  government for forming its opinion are correct, but  to
\nsee whether the opinion formed was correct.  To perform this
\nduty  the  one and the only way is to examine  the  document
\nwhich  in  the\tGovernment’s  opinion  contains\t the  matter
\ncomplained of.\n<\/p>\n
The  argument  that the High Court is not in a\tposition  to
\nperform this duty under s. 99D satisfactorily in the absence
\nof  a  statement  by the government of the  grounds  of\t its
\nopinion appears to me therefore wholly unsound.
\nIn  this very case, the learned judges of the High Court  of
\nAllahabad  felt no difficulty in coming to a  conclusion  on
\nthe question before them even though the government had\t not
\nstated\tthe  grounds  of its opinion.  I  fail\tto  see\t any
\njustification  for  imagining difficulties where  there\t are
\nnone.\n<\/p>\n
I have therefore come to the conclusion that the High  Court
\nwas  right  in\trejecting the argument\tthat  the  order  of
\nforfeiture  should  be\tset aside on  the  ground  that\t the
\nnotification did not state government’s grounds for  forming
\nthe opinion.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal should therefore be dismissed.
\nBy  COURT–In  view  of the opinion of\tthe  majority,\tthis
\nappeal will be allowed and the order of the High Court,\t set
\naside.\tThe appellant will be entitled to the return of\t all
\nthe books, documents and other things seized from him  under
\nthe  order now set aside.  He will also be entitled  to\t the
\nrefund\tof expenses and costs that he had to pay  under\t the
\norder of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
503<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1662, 1962 SCR (2) 371 Author: A Sarkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: HARNAM DAS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/04\/1961 BENCH: SARKAR, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51051","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHarnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-31T21:08:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-31T21:08:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961\"},\"wordCount\":5413,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961\",\"name\":\"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-31T21:08:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-31T21:08:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961","datePublished":"1961-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-31T21:08:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961"},"wordCount":5413,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961","name":"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-31T21:08:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-das-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-on-27-april-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harnam Das vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 April, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51051","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51051"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51051\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51051"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51051"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51051"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}