JUDGMENT Harries, C.J. - This is a petition filed by one Lakshmi Kanta Bhattacharjya, the printer and publisher of a daily Bengali newspaper called "Paschim Banga Patrika." He prays that an order of Government forfeiting a sum of Rs. 2,000 out of the sum of Rs. 3,000 deposited by the Petitioner should be set aside. As required by the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, the petition has been heard by this Bench of three Judges. 2. In the issue of August 1, 1949, of the "Paschim Banga "Patrika" there appeared an Article which was headed "Who is "responsible?" The Provincial Government took objection to this Article and claimed that the Article tended to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects. Therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 8, the Provincial Government were pleased to declare the sum of Rs. 2,000 out of the security of Rs. 3,000 deposited by the Petitioner to, be forfeited to His Majesty. 3. The Petitioner in his petition has claimed that there is nothing whatsoever in this Article which can be regarded as objectionable. The translation of the Article is set out at length at pp. 10, 11 and 12 of the paper-book. 4. Before discussing the contents of this Article, I should like shortly to refer to the relevant provisions of law governing matters of this kind. Section 4(i)(h) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, reads as follows: 4(i) Wherever it appears to the Provincial Government that any printing-press in respect of which any security has been ordered to be deposited u/s 3 is used for the purpose of printing or publishing any newspaper, book or other document containing any words, signs or visible representations which-- * tend, directly or indirectly,-- * (h) to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects, * the Provincial Government may, by notice in writing to the keeper of such printing-press, stating or describing the words, signs or visible representations which in its opinion are of the nature described above,-- (i) Where security has been deposited, declare such security, or any portion thereof, to be forfeited to His Majesty. 5. 5. To this section there are appended a number of explanations and the explanation material to this case is Explanation 4, which is in these words: Words pointing out, without malicious intention and with an honest view to their removal, matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects shall not be deemed to be words of the nature described in Clause (h) of this sub-section. 6. It will be seen that if the impugned Article tends directly or indirectly to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects, then an order of forfeiture would be justified, provided that the words do not fall within Explanation 4. 7. In this Article headed "Who is responsible?" the writer, at the outset, refers to the conduct of coolies acting as porters at railway stations and complains that these coolies have of late been behaving in a very high-handed manner. The writer then goes on to refer to an incident which took place at Sealdah station some days previous to the appearance of the Article. He points out that, as a result of disturbances, a student lost his life and it is quite clear that the writer blames the coolies for these disturbances. The writer then asks himself how these coolies have become so truculent as to misbehave towards Bengali passengers. He puts it in this way: Wherefrom do the coolies get the courage to roughly handle the innocent Bengali gentleman whenever the wages are not up to their satisfaction.? What is the source of such unrestrained mentality of the coolies to belabour the Bengali Babus? 8. A coolie at a railway station is usually a somewhat humble and depressed person; but the writer has noted that now-a-days the coolie is a haughty, truculent person and he, therefore, asks himself--How has this change come about? The writer then gives two reasons for this change in the attitude of the once humble coolie at a railway station. The writer refers to the conduct of a section of the police which he refers to as the non-Bengali police. He suggests that these non-Bengali police are not doing their duty and even where the Bengali is not to blame, he is belaboured in the same manner as the aggressor. The writer refers to the conduct of a section of the police which he refers to as the non-Bengali police. He suggests that these non-Bengali police are not doing their duty and even where the Bengali is not to blame, he is belaboured in the same manner as the aggressor. The writer refers to the charge of these non-Bengali police on the mob at Sealdah station. He suggests that, though the Bengalis were in no way to blame, the police did not discriminate between Bengalis and others. He also refers to the indiscriminate assault on Bengalis during the visit of Pandit Nehru to this city. The writer suggests that it is this attitude of the non-Bengali police that has given humble people like non-Bengali coolies the courage to attack and assault respectable Bengali gentlemen with their wives and their children. 9. The writer also suggests another reason why non-Bengalis are now-a-days apt to treat Bengalis roughly and even with contempt. The writer points out that the Central Government have throughout ignored the just claims of Bengal and have preferred the claims of other provinces. The decision of the Central Government in respect of two States is referred to. The writer complains that Seraikella and Kahareshwan were given by the Central Government to the province of Bihar and that the claims of Bengal to, at least one of these States, was wrongly rejected. The writer also complains that the claims of Bengal to the Bengali-speaking tracts of Bihar have been ignored and that nothing has been done to protect the Bengalis in these areas. This the writer attributes mainly to the attitude of the Central Government, but he also blames the Provincial Government for not insisting upon the just rights of the province. In short, he suggests that the Provincial Government has done nothing to counter this hostile or unfavourable attitude of the Central Government towards the legitimate aspirations of this province. 10. The writer then points out that the result of this attitude has been the arousing of a feeling of superiority, if not of contempt, in non-Bengalis towards Bengalis and he concludes by urging that steps be taken to remove these non-Bengali police as soon as possible. 11. The Article does attack non-Bengali police and does attack the Central Government and to a lesser extent the Provincial Government. 11. The Article does attack non-Bengali police and does attack the Central Government and to a lesser extent the Provincial Government. However, it is not suggested that the Article directly or indirectly tends to excite hatred and contempt of either the Central or Provincial Government. All that is suggested is that it tends to excite feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects. 12. Mr. Dutta on behalf of the Petitioner has suggested that, even if this Article tended to excite hatred and contempt towards anyone, it did not tend to excite hatred and contempt towards any class of His Majesty's subjects. Mr. Dutta concedes that Bengalis form a class, but he contends that the non-Bengalis cannot possibly be said to form a class, as indeed they would include the whole of the world other than Bengalis. He further contended that, even if these words had to be limited to the sub-continent of India, the term "non-Bengali" would cover any Indian who could not be said to be a Bengali. He said that non-Bengalis are far too indefinite a body to be termed a class. In Murray's Oxford Dictionary "class" is defined in these words: A number of individuals (persons or things) possessing common attributes and grouped together under a general or "class" name ; a kind, sort, division. 13. I think Bengalis clearly form a class because they do possess common attributes; but, as far as I can see, the only common attribute that non-Bengalis possess is that they are not Bengalis. Non-Bengalis might be Hindus or Mohammedans from any other province or state in India, or Parsees, Anglo-Indians or even Europeans. Can it possibly be said that such a body forms a class? In order that persons should form a class, there must, I think, be a number of common attributes which bind them together to form a kind of unit. 14. This matter has been considered by the Courts on a number of occasions. In the case of Kamal Sarhar v. Emperor ILR (1938) 1 Cal. 455, Biswas J. held that the words "class or section" in Clause (d) of Section 4(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act mean a definitely ascertainable body of individuals, not an indeterminate body or group, having no clearly defined and non-variable characteristics or criteria by which they can be distinguished from any other body or group. 455, Biswas J. held that the words "class or section" in Clause (d) of Section 4(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act mean a definitely ascertainable body of individuals, not an indeterminate body or group, having no clearly defined and non-variable characteristics or criteria by which they can be distinguished from any other body or group. He held that "exploiters" or "capitalists", as such did not constitute a class or a section within the meaning of that clause. 15. The same view was taken by a Bench of three Judges of the Lahore High Court In the matter of the newspaper "Partap" Urdu Daily of Lahore ILR (1947) Lah. 795. In that case it was held that a class or section of His Majesty's subjects is a set of persons all filing one common character and possessing common exclusive characteristics, which may be associated with their origin, race or religion. The term "class" carried with it the idea of a readily ascertainable group having some element permanence. They further held that a political organization like the Congress is not a class as that term is used in Section 4 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act. 16. As I have said previously non-Bengalis can only be said to have one common attribute and that of a negative character, namely, that they are not Bengalis. Non-Bengalis are an indeterminate body and very vaguely defined. They have no common characteristics of race, language or religion and all ,that can be said of them is that they are not of Bengal. It appears to me that the term "non-Bengali" is far too wide to be included in the word "class" of His Majesty's subjects. Bengalis are a class of His Majesty's subjects and non-Bengalis are the remainder of the inhabitants of India who may or may not be His Majesty's subjects. For example, a Gurkha, who is a native of Nepal, can be described as a non-Bengali, but he certainly is not a subject of his Majesty. In fact the term "non-Bengali" is so wide as to cover all nationalities, castes, creeds and religions. Holding, as I do, that non-Bengalis cannot be described as a class, then this Article cannot possibly be objectionable and cannot fall within Section 4(1)(h) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act. 17. Mr. In fact the term "non-Bengali" is so wide as to cover all nationalities, castes, creeds and religions. Holding, as I do, that non-Bengalis cannot be described as a class, then this Article cannot possibly be objectionable and cannot fall within Section 4(1)(h) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act. 17. Mr. Dutta further argued that even if non-Bengalis could be regarded as a class the Article would clearly fall within Explanation 4 to Sub-Section (1) of Section 4. There is nothing to suggest that this Article was written with a malicious intention. Writers in Bengali newspapers express their minds freely and forcibly. They do not as a rule fight with kid gloves. Forceful expression is expected of these writers and they should not unnecessarily be curbed. However, this Article appears to me to be very restrained and contains no abusive matter of any kind. There is, therefore nothing from which a Court could infer that the writer had any malicious intention. What he really pleads for in the Article is the removal of these non-Bengali police. He seems to think, rightly or wrongly, that they are the cause of the trouble. Their attitude towards Bengalis encouraged others to treat Bengalis in the manner in which the coolies treated them at Sealdah station. The writer appears to think that if these police are removed then matters would quickly improve. If that be the true view of the Article, then it appears to me to fall precisely within the words of Explanation 4. It is true that the writer does attribute another cause to the attitude of non-Bengalis towards Bengalis, namely, the attitude of the Central Government and to the lesser extent the conduct of the Provincial Government; but nevertheless it seems clear that the real complaint was against these police. It seems clear from the general tone of the Article that the writer believed that if these police were removed then the real source of the trouble would be eliminated. The Article, therefore, falls within Explanation 4 and cannot be regarded as objectionable. 18. For these reasons, I am satisfied that this Article does not offend against the provisions of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, and that being so, the order of forfeiture of the Provincial Government must be set aside and the sum of Rs. 2,000 so forfeited must be refunded forthwith to the Petitioner. 19. 18. For these reasons, I am satisfied that this Article does not offend against the provisions of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, and that being so, the order of forfeiture of the Provincial Government must be set aside and the sum of Rs. 2,000 so forfeited must be refunded forthwith to the Petitioner. 19. The Petitioner is entitled to the costs of these proceedings. Certified for two counsel. Sinha J. 20. I agree. Banerjee J. 21. I agree.