Amity Institute of Advance Legal Studies

Amity University , UP

TOPIC: JUDICIAL APPROACH ON SECTION 95 and 96 OF Cr.P.C.

Submitted to: Dr. Asha Verma Submitted by : Kunal

LLM (Criminal Law)
A03104519025
 Piara Singh Bhaniara V. State of Punjab and Anr.
• In this case, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High
Court for the quashing of the order of the State government
by which his book titled “Bhav Sagar Samunder Amrit Vani
Granth” was forfeited under section 95 of the Cr.P.C by the
state government on the ground that the book can hurt the
religious feelings of Sikhs in the Punjab.

• The legality of the Notification has been called in question

primarily on two grounds that (1) it has been issued without
seeking any explanation or affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and is thus violative of principle of
natural justice and (2) it does not disclose any ground on which
the State Government has formulated its opinion.
• counsel representing the state government objected on this
petition that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy
under Section 96 of the Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the
application has to be heard by a Special Bench of the Hon'ble
High Court comprising of three Hon'ble Judges.

• From a bare perusal of the aforesaid Section, it appears that

the remedy under Section 96 of the Cr.P.C. is available where an
interested person against whom a declaration of forfeiture has
been made under Section 95 of the Cr.P.C., claims that the
publication of the book did not contain any such material as is
referred to in Sub-Section (1) of Section 95. This remedy is
available only on the solitary ground, specified in sub-section (1)
of Section 96. However, in the present case, the impugned
notification has not been questioned on the ground specified in
the Section, but on the grounds of non- observance of principle
of natural justice and contravention of the provisions of 
Section 95 Cr.P.C.
• This writ petition was admitted to hearing by a Division Bench
of this Court. The petitioner has also claimed violation of his
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of speech and
expression. It is settled principle of law that alternative remedy
is no bar to the proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India where the protection and enforcement of
Fundamental Rights is claimed or where there has been
violation of principle of natural justice or where the order or
proceedings are without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged.
Anand Chintamani Dighe and anr. V. State of Maharashtra
and ors
•the Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of powers conferred
by Section 95(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, declared
that every copy, including the manuscript or any other form of the
play entitled 'Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy' and its translations in
Gujarati or any other language shall stand forfeited to
Government.
•In these proceedings, the order of forfeiture has been sought to
be impugned. In view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of
Section 96 of the Code, the petition has been heard by a Special
Bench of three Judges.
• The state government stated that the reading of the said play
shows that it is written with deliberate and malicious intention to
outrage the feelings of the persons who follow and believe in the
teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.
• Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1)
of Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1994)
the Government of Maharashtra hereby declares that the every
copy (including manuscript or any other form) of the said play, in
Marathi and translation thereof in Gujarathi or any other
languages, shall be forfeited to Government.
• The court stated that before receipt of the complaints, the play
itself had been duly approved by the Stage Performances Scrutiny
Board in November 1997. The Board had found the play to be fit
for universal viewing and had issued a certification without even a
single cut, deletion or excision. The apprehension that the play
may give rise to an 'intensity of feelings' amongst various classes
of society and that the Police Commissioner had consequently
declined to grant a performance licence in view of the possibility
that a law and order situation would arise was not a ground which
would warrant the imposition of an order of forfeiture under
Section 95 of the Code.
• Therefore, regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
court was of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
The order of forfeiture dated 3rd December 1998 and the
consequential communication of the Police Commissioner are
quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition was allowed in the
aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.