JUDGMENT Kirty, J. (For himself and for Hari Swarup, J.) :- This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 99-C of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to hear and determine the application filed by, Lalai Singh Yadav under Section 99-B of the Code. 2. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh, purporting to act under Section 99-A(1) of the Code, by Notification No. 9733-R/VIII-B-II-1946-68 dated December 8, 1969 declared every copy of the book entitled "The Ramayan (A True Reading)" in English by Periyar E. V. Ramaswami and the book "Sachchi Ramayan" (the Hindi translation of the above mentioned book) to be forfeited to the Government. The material portion of the said Notification reads as follows : "Whereas it appears to the State Government that the book entitled "The Ramayan (A True Reading)" published by Rationalist Publications Madras-2 and printed at the Dravidian Press, Madras-2, and the book "Sachchi Ramayan" (the Hindi translation of the above mentioned book) translated into Hindi by Sri Ram Adhar of Dulalnagar. Pukhrayan, Kanpur, published by Sri Lalai Singh Yadav, Ashok Pustakalaya, Jhinjhak, District Kanpur and printed by Sri Hub Lal Azad, Adarsh Printing Press Jhinjhak, District Kanpur, contain matters detailed in the Appendix to this notification, which are deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India, namely, the Hindus by insulting their religion and religious beliefs and the publication whereof is punishable under Sec. 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860). Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act No. 5 of 1898) and on the grounds mentioned above, the Governor is pleased to declare every copy of the aforesaid books and of any other document containing copies, reprints and translation of extracts, for the said books, to be forfeited to Government". 3. Initially, a question arose as to whether the application itself had been filed within the time allowed by Section 99-B of the Code. If time is computed from December 8, 1969, which is the date of the relevant Notification, the application admittedly would be beyond the prescribed period. If time is to be computed from the date of the publication of the Notification in the U.P. Gazette, the application is within the time allowed by law. If time is computed from December 8, 1969, which is the date of the relevant Notification, the application admittedly would be beyond the prescribed period. If time is to be computed from the date of the publication of the Notification in the U.P. Gazette, the application is within the time allowed by law. Section 99-A of the Code itself provides that the "State Government" may by notification in the Official Gazette ............ declare ............ every copy of such book or other documents to be forfeited to the "Government". It is, therefore, clear that the effective order against which an application can be filed in the High Court under Section 99-B of the Code is the order containing the Notification published in the Official Gazette. Till the publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette no effective order of forfeiture can be said to have been passed and therefore, in the instant case the relevant date for computing the period of limitation prescribed by Section 99-B must be the date of publication in the U.P. Gazette, i.e. December 20, 1969. 4. For the decision of the case the requirements of the law as contained in Section 99-A of the Code have to be determined in the first instance, because it was inter alia contended that the impugned Notification of forfeiture does not fulfil the requirements of the law, namely, the specific provisions contained in Section 99-A of the Code. The material part of Section 99-A(1), omitting the parts which are not necessary, reads as follows : "99-A(1) ......... Where ...... (a) any newspaper, or book ....... The material part of Section 99-A(1), omitting the parts which are not necessary, reads as follows : "99-A(1) ......... Where ...... (a) any newspaper, or book ....... or (b) any document, wherever printed, appears to the "State Government" to contain any seditious matter, or 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 Section 124-A or Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the issue of the newspaper containing such matter and every copy of such book or other document to be forfeited to Government ...................." Section 99-A comprehends three categories of cases. In the instant case we are concerned with the third category, that is, a case in which the book in question appears to the State Government to contain matter which is deliberately and maliciously, intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class by insulting the religion or religious beliefs of that class, that is to say, the publication of the matter is punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. The legality of the Notification has to be tested with reference to what has been just stated, and also the subsequent part of Section 99-A which requires the State Government to state "the grounds of its opinion". Before considering whether the impugned Notification fulfils the requirements of Section 99-A of the Code, it would be appropriate to mention that the learned counsel for the applicant had also submitted that the Notification is invalid on the following grounds, as well :- (1) That Section 99-A and the order of the State Government thereunder are invalid as they offend sub-clauses (a), (f) and (g) of Article 19(1) and Article 31 of the Constitution. (2) That the power to declare any book or document to be forfeited to the Government conferred on the State Government under Section 99-A(1) of the Code is a quasi judicial power and the impugned Notification and order, having been made without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the applicant, violated the principles of natural justice. 5. The two grounds mentioned above are without force. In Ramji Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620 the Supreme Court has held Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code to be within the limits of constitutionally permissible legislation affecting the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. If Section 295-A of the Penal Code is immune from attack on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it necessarily follows that Section 99-A of the Code is also so immune. For the same reasons for which Section 295-A of the Penal Code was held to be not violative of clause (a) of Article 19(1) the Section must also be held to be not violative of clauses (f) and (g) of that Article. Section 99-A of the Code also cannot likewise be held to be void on the ground that it contravenes clauses (a), (f) and (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. If an order of forfeiture has been passed under Section 99-A of the Code and the order is otherwise valid, that is to say it is an order made by authority of law, that order cannot be challenged as being in contravention of Article 31(1) of the Constitution, for the order depriving the aggrieved person of property has not been made save by authority of law. In Ramji Lal's case the Supreme Court itself has made the following observations : "Having regard to the ingredients of the offence created by the impugned Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, there cannot, in our opinion, be any possibility of this law being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution, (Bottom of para 9 of the judgment reported in AIR 1957 SC 620 )." 6. In so far as the second ground is concerned it is again without force. In so far as the second ground is concerned it is again without force. Section 99-A does not even by necessary implication require the State Government to issue any notice to any person or to afford any person reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any order declaring any newspaper, book or document to be forfeited to the Government. The Legislature itself has given a specific remedy to the person aggrieved by any Notification or order issued under Section 99-A. Under Section 99-B of the Code, a legal right has been conferred on such a person to apply to the High Court to set aside the order by which he is affected or aggrieved. Again the legislature in Section 99-C has provided that every application made under Section 99-B shall be heard and determined by a Special Bench of the High Court composed of three Judges. In view of the specific remedy provided by the legislature itself the second ground also to our mind, is wholly untenable. 7. The essential question to be decided, as already mentioned, is as to the legal requirements of Section 99-A of the Code and as to whether the impugned order fulfils those requirements. Although arguments at considerable length were advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also by the learned counsel for the State, we do not consider it necessary to refer to or consider their respective submissions, because the Supreme Court itself has considered what the requirements of Section 99-A are and has laid down the same in Harnam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1662 . 8. In Harnam Das' case (supra) the impugned Notification had been issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government acting under Sec. 99-A of the Code declaring the books 'Sikh Mat Khandan Part I" and "Bhoomika Nizam Sikh Mat Khandan" forfeited to the Government on the ground that the said books contained matter the publication of which is punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that Harnam Das had filed an application in this Court under Section 99-B of the Code. That application having been dismissed the matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court. It appears that Harnam Das had filed an application in this Court under Section 99-B of the Code. That application having been dismissed the matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court. The majority judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered by Sarkar, J. Adverting to the relevant part of Section 99-A(1) of the Code the following observation was made in the judgment delivered by Sarkar, J. :- "Two things appear clearly from the terms of this Section. The first thing is that an order under it can be made only when the Government forms a certain opinion. That opinion is that the document concerning which the order is proposed to be made contains "any matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 124-A or Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Penal Code." Section 124-A deals with seditious matters. Section 153-A with matters promoting enmity between different classes of Indian citizens and Section 295-A with matters insulting the religion or religious beliefs of any class of such citizens. The other thing that appears from the Section is that the Government has to state the grounds of its opinion. The order made in this case no doubt, stated that in the Government's opinion the books contained matters the publication of which was punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of the Penal Code. It did not however, state, as it should have, the grounds of that opinion. So it is not known which communities were alienated from each other or whose religious beliefs had been wounded according to the Government, nor why the Government thought that such alienation or offence to religion had been caused." 9. It did not however, state, as it should have, the grounds of that opinion. So it is not known which communities were alienated from each other or whose religious beliefs had been wounded according to the Government, nor why the Government thought that such alienation or offence to religion had been caused." 9. The learned Judges after having made the observations quoted above proceeded to consider the provisions contained in Sections 99-B, 99-C and 99-D. With reference to the said sections the learned Judges observed : "We think it fairly clear from these sections that the ground on which an application can be made under Section 99-B is the ground which, if established, would require the High Court to set aside the order under Section 99-D." The learned Judges then proceeded to consider the view expressed by this Court while determining the application of Harnam Das under Section 99-B. Thereafter they proceeded to mention the view which this Court had taken in respect of the duty of the High Court under Section 99-D and having mentioned that the view taken by this Court appear to have been taken in certain other cases, viz. Premi Khem Raj v. Chief Secretary, AIB 1951 Raj 113 (SB); N. K. Veerabrahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 572 (SB) and Khalil Ahmed v. State of U.P., AIR 1960 All 715 (SB) stated that they were unable to accept the construction of Section 99-D in the said cases. It was observed that apparently it was thought in the said cases that the words "if it is not satisfied that ........................ the book ............ contained seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A" in Sec. 99-D meant not so satisfied for any reason whatsoever irrespective of the reasons on which the Government formed its opinion about it. Proceeding further the learned Judges observed as follows : "The question is what do the words "matter of such a nature as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A" appearing in Section 99-D mean ? Do they mean any matter of that nature as the High Court thought ? Proceeding further the learned Judges observed as follows : "The question is what do the words "matter of such a nature as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A" appearing in Section 99-D mean ? Do they mean any matter of that nature as the High Court thought ? Or do they mean only those on which the order of forfeiture was based, that is those which for the reasons stated by it, the Government thought were punishable under one or more of Sections 124-A, 153-A and 295-A of the Penal Code mentioned by it ? It seems to us that the latter is the correct view and followed inevitably if Sections 99-A, 99-B and 99-D are read together, as they must." It would also be appropriate to our mind to quote three more paragraphs from the judgment of the Supreme Court following the above quotation. They are : "Now Section 99-D is concerned with setting aside an order. That order is one made under Section 99-A. An order under that section can be made only when certain things have appeared to the Government and the Government has formed a certain opinion. The section further requires the Government to state the grounds of its opinion. It is this order that is, the order based on the grounds stated, which the party affected has been given by Section 99-B the right to move the High Court to set aside. It would follow that all that Section 99-B can require the party to do is to show that that order was improper. Whether that order was proper or not would, of course, depend only on the merits of the grounds on which it was based; whether another order to the same effect could have been made on other grounds is irrelevant, for that would not show the validity of the order actually made; that order would be bad if the grounds on which it is made do not support it. Two orders, though both saying that the publication contains matters which offend the same section of the Penal Code cannot be the same or an identical order if the reasons why they are considered so to offend the section of the Penal Code concerned are different. Two orders, though both saying that the publication contains matters which offend the same section of the Penal Code cannot be the same or an identical order if the reasons why they are considered so to offend the section of the Penal Code concerned are different. Now Section 99-D says that a person affected by the order may move the High Court to set it aside on the ground that the book "did not contain any seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of Sec. 99-A." The matter mentioned here must, for the reasons stated, refer only to such matter on which for the grounds stated by it, the Government's opinion has been based." "We proceed now to Section 99-D. It is concerned with the same order of forfeiture. An order contemplated by Section 99-D is made on an application under Section 99-B. That order must therefore accept or reject the grounds on which the application under Section 99-B was made. These grounds, as we have seen are confined to challenging the propriety of the grounds on which the Government's opinion resulting in the order was based. The words which we have earlier quoted from Section 99-B occur substantially in the same form in Section 99-D. The scope of the two sections is identical. The common words occurring in them must, therefore, have the same meaning in both. They must hence, in Section 99-D also mean such matters on which for the grounds stated by it the Government's opinion was based. They cannot mean, as the High Court thought any matter whatsoever, irrespective of the Government's reasons for making the order, which in the High Court's opinion would have justified it." "This view of the matter also explains why Section 99-A requires the Government to state the grounds of its opinion. The reason was to enable the High Court to set aside the order of forfeiture if it was not satisfied of the propriety of those grounds. If it were not so, the grounds of the Government's opinion would serve no purpose at all. The reason was to enable the High Court to set aside the order of forfeiture if it was not satisfied of the propriety of those grounds. If it were not so, the grounds of the Government's opinion would serve no purpose at all. This would specially be so as Section 99-G provides that an order of forfeiture cannot be called in question except in accordance with the provisions of Section 99-B. If the order could be upheld as the High Court seems to have thought, on grounds other than those on which the Government based its opinion, there would have been no need to provide that the grounds of the Government's opinion should be stated; such grounds would have been wholly irrelevant in judging the validity of the order". 10. In the subsequent paragraphs of the majority judgment the Supreme Court expressed its view in regard to the requirements of Section 99-A in clear and unambiguous language. It was held that Section 99-A requires the Government to state the grounds of its opinion and the reason for this was to enable the High Court to set aside the order of forfeiture if it was not satisfied of the propriety of those grounds. It was observed that if the order could be upheld on grounds other than those on which the Government based its opinion, there would have been no need to provide that the grounds of the Government's opinion should be stated; such grounds would then have been wholly irrelevant in judging the validity of the order. It was observed that if the order could be upheld on grounds other than those on which the Government based its opinion, there would have been no need to provide that the grounds of the Government's opinion should be stated; such grounds would then have been wholly irrelevant in judging the validity of the order. It was also observed that an order under S. 99-A was essentially an order of the Government and of no one else and that it was not for the High Court to substitute its own grounds when not satisfied with the propriety of the grounds stated by the State Government because the function and power of the High Court under Section 99-D were only to decide whether the offending newspaper, book or other document contained seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A. The stating by the State Government of the "Grounds of its opinion" being an integral and essential part of Section 99-A, it is with reference to these grounds that the High Court has to decide under Section 99-D whether the newspaper, the book or other document contains seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in Section 99-A(1). In the penultimate paragraph of the majority judgment it was observed as follows : "What then is to happen when the Government did not state the grounds of its opinion. In such a case if the High Court unheld the order, it may be that it would have done so for reasons which the Government did not have in contemplation at all. If the High Court did that it would really have made an order of forfeiture itself and not upheld such an order made by the Government. This as already stated, the High Court has no power to do under Section 99-D. It seems clear to us, therefore, that in such a case the High Court must set aside the order under Section 99-D for it cannot then be satisfied that the grounds given by the Government justified the order. You cannot be satisfied about a thing which you do not know." 11. You cannot be satisfied about a thing which you do not know." 11. The view expressed by the Supreme Court and the construction put by it on Sections 99-A and 99-D of the Code are binding on this Court as well as all other Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution. The instant case therefore, has, to be decided having regard to the views expressed by the Supreme Court as noted above. 12. The question which now remains for consideration is whether the impugned order fulfills the requirements of Section 99-A of the Code. 13. In the instant case the crucial matter on which the State Government had to form its opinion under S. 99-A(1) of the Code was as to whether the two books contained matters which were deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a particular class by insulting the religion or the religious beliefs of that class and the offending matters were such as the publications of the same was punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. The second part of Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A of the Code makes it clear that not only the State Government had to form, the aforesaid opinion but it had also to state the grounds of its opinion. The word "opinion" according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary means "Judgment or belief based on grounds short of proof." The aforesaid meaning must be considered to be apposite in the context in which the word "opinion" occurs in Sec. 99-A of the Code. The formation of opinion therefore, was not subjective but it had necessarily to be objective. The very fact that the State Government is required to state the grounds of its opinion shows that it is required to mention the particular facts, reasons and circumstances upon or on the basis of which it had come to form the opinion fore-running the order forfeiting the said two books. The order, therefore, has to be so to say, a speaking order and the High Court under Section 99-D of the Code has to satisfy itself with reference to the grounds of the opinion of the State Government stated in the impugned order published in the Gazette and come to a decision as to whether the books in question contain matters of such a nature as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A of the Code. The meaning of the word "ground", in the context in which it is used in Section 99-A of the Code, out of the several meanings given in the New Webster's Dictionary, can appropriately be "the basis on which anything rests; foundation; substratum hence, the foundation of knowledge, belief, or conviction, the premise, reasons, or collection of data upon which anything is made to rely for cogency or validity, as facts are the ground of scientific theory, or belief." 14. In the instant case, the impugned order purports merely to incorporate therein the relevant words occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A of the Code. In a sense it might be argued that the notification read as a whole would indicate that the State Government did form its opinion in regard to matters on which it was required to form its opinion under Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A of the Code; but the notification, to our mind does not contain the grounds of the opinion of the State Government which it had to state as required by the said sub-section. The notification merely states that the books in question contain matters detailed in the Appendix to the notification which are deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens in India namely, the Hindus by insulting their religion and religious beliefs. It does not give the grounds for the formation of the opinion by the State Government. It contains only the inference and not the reasons which may have impelled the State Government to arrive at the conclusion it did. It is not given to this Court to evolve or conjure up grounds for the opinion of the State Government from the material that may be available i.e. the passages specified in the Appendix to the Notification. There is also no gainsaying the fact that there is no such defined class in India which can be named the Hindus except perhaps by way of contradistinction vis-a-vis the Christians or Muslims. There is also no gainsaying the fact that there is no such defined class in India which can be named the Hindus except perhaps by way of contradistinction vis-a-vis the Christians or Muslims. In fact the Hindus in India or elsewhere broadly constitute a community in which numerous sects or classes entertaining various beliefs or faiths in the matter of religion are happily concatenated by ancient spiritual and theological heritage, in that ultimate analysis would show that their diverse beliefs and faiths are universal in nature founded on the faith or belief in the Supreme Eternal Being and its manifestations. Be that as it may, it is extremely difficult to hold that there is any well defined class which can be called by the name 'Hindus' and of which the identity can be said to be certain specially in the matter of religious faith feeling or beliefs or ceremonial rituals or cults, or practices. In regard to such matters there does exist so much divergence and ostensible incompatibility that but for the spirit of tolerance and faith in co-existence, inherently and universally ingrained in every Hindu mind, the bond that keeps the various sects within the Hindu fold would not have remained unsnapped millennium after millennium. A Hindu is nothing if not catholic. This is a matter of considerable importance because in order to judge as to whether the matters contained in the two books in question are deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India, namely, Hindus, it has to be ascertained as to whether there is or is not a defined class community or sect within the folds of the Hindu religion entertaining certain beliefs which can be said to be so intended to be outraged by the impugned publications. It has further to be ascertained as to whether the religious feelings of a defined class, sect or community were or have been sought to be intended to be outraged by insulting their religion and religious beliefs. It has further to be ascertained as to whether the religious feelings of a defined class, sect or community were or have been sought to be intended to be outraged by insulting their religion and religious beliefs. Howsoever liberally the impugned order is read, it would, to our mind, be difficult to read therein any discerptible statement that amongst the Hindus there is a particular class, sect or community which entertains particular beliefs or faith or has particular religious feelings which have been deliberately and maliciously intended to be outraged by insulting the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, sect or community. In this situation, is it for the High Court to cull out by stating the various scriptures of the Hindus or by making researches on its own, with or without the assistance of counsel, the particular class or sect, if any amongst the Hindus and the religious feelings or beliefs which are peculiar or sacrosanct to that class or sect, and then to decide whether the alleged offending matters in the instant case those noted in the Appendix to the Notification are deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of such class or sect by insulting the religion or religious beliefs of that class or sect ? Are the Judges to import into the impugned Notification their personal knowledge or impression in regard to the existence or non-existence of such class or sect and its religion, religious feelings and religious beliefs ? The answer must, presumably, be in the negative. As has been laid down by the Supreme Court it is not for the High Court to furnish grounds in support of the impugned order which the State Government itself has not stated. If that were so, the High Court would be stating its own grounds, although the State Government did not do so or had failed to do so. This, the Supreme Court has held, the High Court has no power to do. 15. If that were so, the High Court would be stating its own grounds, although the State Government did not do so or had failed to do so. This, the Supreme Court has held, the High Court has no power to do. 15. It was argued at the bar by the learned counsel for the State, that the court can take judicial notice of certain facts under Section 57 of the Evidence Act and that in the instant case this court should take judicial notice of the fact that amongst the Hindus there is a defined class or sect which worships Ram Chandra Ji and Seeta Ji as deities and that Ram Chandra Ji to numerous people belonging to the Hindu community is an incarnation of God. It was further urged that the matters detailed in the Appendix to the impugned notification contain passages which either vilify or tarnish the images of Ram Chandra Ji, Seeta Ji and other personages and characters mentioned in the Balmeeki's Ramayan or Ram Charitra Manas of Tulsidas. It was also stated that in certain parts of India, specially in Uttar Pradesh, there are temples and holy places dedicated to or associated with Ram Chandra Ji, Seeta Ji and others. This being so it was urged, the matters mentioned in the Appendix to the notification per se must be read as being intended to outrage the religious feelings of the said persons by insulting their religion and religious beliefs. The difficulty in accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the State primarily is that if this Court were to do so it would actually result in furnishing grounds in support of the opinion of the State Govt. which the State Govt. itself did not state in the notification. Besides, it is extremely doubtful as to whether Section 57 of the Evidence Act could be harnessed and pressed into service on behalf, of the State Government by its learned counsel to the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 56 of the Evidence Act provides that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved. Section 57 of the said Act provides that the court shall take judicial notice of the facts mentioned in clauses 1 to 13. Section 56 of the Evidence Act provides that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved. Section 57 of the said Act provides that the court shall take judicial notice of the facts mentioned in clauses 1 to 13. It is clear therefore, that judicial notice can be taken only of the fact or facts enumerated in clauses 1 to 13 of Section 57 of the Evidence Act. The word 'fact' has been defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act as follows : Fact means and includes - (1) anything, state of things, or relation of things capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. The definition contains five illustrations. Section 57 of the Act, therefore, requires the court to take judicial notice of the fact or facts enumerated in clauses 1 to 13 thereof, provided, however, that the subject, matter falls within the definition of "fact" mentioned above. Had the notification mentioned that there is a defined class or sect which entertains a particular belief or faith as part of the religion followed by its members, it might have been pertinent with the aid of Section 57 of the Evidence Act to ascertain and take judicial notice of the fact as to the existence of the said class and as to the particular beliefs or faith which the members of that class entertain. This could have been done with reference to books like Balmeeki's Ramayan, Ram Charitra Manas of Tulsidas and other similar books. It might then have been possible to take judicial notice of the fact that there does exist the class or sect mentioned in the notification which entertains the particular belief or faith as part of its religion and then the court could have, with reference to the said class and its beliefs or faith, judged as to whether the matters mentioned in the Appendix to the notification did deliberately or maliciously outrage or were so intended to outrage the religious feelings of such class by insulting the religion or the religious beliefs of that class. The notification in question which merely recapitulates the various expressions used in Section 99-A(1) of the Code does not mention any such fact or facts of which judicial notice must or can be legally taken under Section 57 of the Evidence Act. The notification in question which merely recapitulates the various expressions used in Section 99-A(1) of the Code does not mention any such fact or facts of which judicial notice must or can be legally taken under Section 57 of the Evidence Act. It is not for the High Court to fill in lacunae in a notification under Section 99-A of the Code, because if the High Court attempted to do so it would in reality arrogate to itself the function and power of the State Government under the said section. That jurisdiction has not been given to the High Court, for it is the duty of the High Court under Section 99-D of the Code only to judge and decide as to whether the order of forfeiture against which a petition has been filed by the aggrieved person under Section 99-B of the Code is one which has been validly made by the State Government under Section 99-A. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, Section 57 of the Evidence Act can be of no avail to the State Government. 16. An order of forfeiture under Section 99-A of the Code cannot, as the specific language used in the section would show be sustained unless it is shown that the publication of the offending matters is punishable under Section 124-A or Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. We are concerned with Section 295-A which occurs in Chapter XV of the Indian Penal Code and reads as follows : "Whoever with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings of any class of citizen of India by words, either spoken, or written, or by visible representations, insults or attempts to insult religion or religious belief of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." One of the essential requirements of the aforesaid section, and for that matter S. 295 (S. 295-A ?) and Sec. 153-A of the Penal Code, is that the offence must have been directed against or caused to a class of citizens of India. The word "class" connotes a number of persons belonging to the same category either in regard to rank, order or social status or who have a common faith or belief in the matter of religion or religious practices. The word "class" connotes a number of persons belonging to the same category either in regard to rank, order or social status or who have a common faith or belief in the matter of religion or religious practices. The expression "any class of citizens of India" may embrace any religious sect and need not be limited only as between those who follow different religions but it includes different sects or classes of Hindus who are animated by sectarian feelings. In the instant case, the matters mentioned in the Appendix to the notification could possibly be said to outrage the religion or religious beliefs of a particular sect or sects amongst the Hindus. But even after reading and examining the matters mentioned in the Appendix it has not been possible for us to hold that the said matters can be said to outrage the religion or religious beliefs of all the persons who came within the fold of Hindu religion. For this reason also in our opinion, it was necessary for the State Government to mention the sect or sects forming a distinct class and entertaining particular religious faith or beliefs which could be said to have been offended or outraged by the publication in question. Had that been done it might have been competent for this Court to take judicial notice, if necessary, of the fact as to the existence of the said sect or sects and their religious faith or beliefs. This could have been done by adverting to books like Balmeeki's Ramayan, Tulsi Das's Ram Charitra Manas and other relevant books. The language of the notification, however, excludes an investigation of that nature in the present case. 17. The following observation has been made by Bijen Kumar Mukherjee in his book (Second Edition) "The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts" at page 3 :- "Now religion is absolutely a matter of faith with individuals or communities, and it is not necessarily theistic." The learned author at page 136 of the Book aforesaid has further stated as follows : "Though there are numerous gods in the Hindu pantheon, only a few of them are worshipped in temples. The majority of temples are dedicated to Shiva, Vishnu Shakti, Surya and Ganapati. The majority of temples are dedicated to Shiva, Vishnu Shakti, Surya and Ganapati. The Shiva temples, some of which are very large and picturesque are to be found all over India and so also are the temples of Vishnu who is worshipped in his various forms or incarnations as Shiva, Krishna, Ram Chandra, Narsingha etc. Shakti is the Female principal who is spoken of as the consort of Shiva." A reading of lecture No. IV of the said book would show that amongst the Hindus there are numerous sects and each of such sect worships or believes in a particular form or incarnation of the three principal deities, namely, Shiva, Vishnu and Shakti. These deities are on ultimate analysis, in reality manifestations in some tangible and acceptable form of the Supreme Eternal Being. In judging whether a particular publication comes within the mischief of either Section 99-A of the Code or of Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, the Court must know with reasonable certainty as to the class of citizens of India whose religious feelings have been sought or intended to be outraged deliberately and maliciously by insulting the religion or religious beliefs of that class. In the instant case, as would appear from the preface and the Publisher's note of the book "The Ramayan - A True Reading", the original book was written by Pariyar R. V. Ramaswamy in Tamil. The book "The Ramayan - A True Reading" is an English Translation of the original book in Tamil. The book "Sachchi Ramayan" appears to be a Hindi translation of the English translation of the original book in Tamil. The English translation published in 1959 was priced at 75 np. Subsequently it appears to have been enhanced to Re. 1/-. The Hindi translation "Sachchi Ramayan" published in 1968 was priced at Rs. 2/-. Both these books are small in size and contain less than 100 pages. It may be that the author who originally wrote the book in Tamil was merely attempting to bring to the notice of the Tamil Hindus that a great wrong has been done to them by deriding and vilifying the people living in the Southern India and by extolling and glorifying Ram Chandra, Seeta and others, who had gone from the Northern India to the South. In fact the object of the book might have been only to ventilate grievances or the supposed grievances of the Dravidians against the Aryans. This might have a considerable bearing on the question as to whether the author or the translators of the original book were actuated by deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any particular section of the Hindus by insulting or attempting to insult the religion or the religious belief of that section. It does not however, seem to us to be necessary to go into this question because, as has already been observed, in the instant case, the impugned order cannot be sustained because the State Government did not state the grounds of its opinion as required in Section 99-A of the Code. For that reason alone the petition has to be allowed and the order of forfeiture set aside. 18. The petition is allowed with costs which we assess at Rs. 300/-. The declaration and the order of forfeiture of the State Government dated December 8, 1969 published in the U.P. Gazette dated December 20, 1969 are quashed. All the copies of the two books "Ramayan - A True Reading" and "Sachchi Ramayan" shall be returned to the petitioner. K. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. :- 19. This is an application under Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Lalai Singh Yadav for setting aside the order of the U.P. Government under Notification No. 9733-R/VIII-B-II-1346-68 dated 8-12-1969 forfeiting under Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure a book named "Sachchi Ramayana.' 20. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows : In 1957 one Pariyar E. V. Ramaswami, hereinafter be called Ramaswami, wrote a book "The Ramayana (A True Reading)". This book was printed at the Dravidian Press, Madras. The applicant's contention is that the book 'Sachchi Ramayana' is a translation of the Ramayan written by Ramaswamy. Sachchi Bamayan was published on 1st October, 1968 and was printed in Hindi by Adarsh Printing Press. Jhinjhak District Kanpur. According to the applicant Ramaswami permitted him to translate "The Ramayana (A True Reading)" and he published it as there was great demand in the public for the aforesaid translation. The applicant contended that there was nothing offending in the book 'Sachchi Ramayana' and, as such the forfeiture order was liable to be set aside. Jhinjhak District Kanpur. According to the applicant Ramaswami permitted him to translate "The Ramayana (A True Reading)" and he published it as there was great demand in the public for the aforesaid translation. The applicant contended that there was nothing offending in the book 'Sachchi Ramayana' and, as such the forfeiture order was liable to be set aside. During the course of the argument, it was also contended that in the notification, referred to above, grounds and reasons for the forfeiture were not given and, as such, the notification was liable to be struck down. In the counter-affidavit, the State contended that the book 'Sachchi Ramayana' injured the feelings of the Hindus and certain passages which were referred to in the notification, were glaring instances of the same. It was also contended that the notification fulfilled all the requirements of law and was not liable to be set aside. 21. The first question which has to be decided in this case is as to whether the grounds for forfeiture were given in the notification. In this connection the notification has to be looked into. It runs as below : "In pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution, the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of Notification No. 9733-R-VIII-B-II-1346-68, dated December 8, 1969. No. 9733 R/VIII-B-II-1946-68. December 8, 1969. Whereas it appears in the State Govt. notification that the book entitled "The Ramayana (A True Reading)" published by Rationalist Publications, Madras-2 and printed at the Dravidian Press, Madras-2 and the book 'Sachchi Ramayana' (the Hindi translation of the above mentioned book) translated into Hindi by Sri Ram Adhar of Dulalnagar, Pukhrayan. Kanpur, Published by Sri Lalai Singh Yadav, Ashok Pustakalaya Jhinjhak District Kanpur and printed by Sri Hub Lal Azad, Adarsh Printing Press. Jhinjhak District Kanpur contain matters detailed in the Appendix to this notification, which are deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India namely, the Hindus by insulting their religion and religious beliefs and the publication whereof is punishable under Sec. 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, (1360) (Act No. 45 of 1860). Jhinjhak District Kanpur contain matters detailed in the Appendix to this notification, which are deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India namely, the Hindus by insulting their religion and religious beliefs and the publication whereof is punishable under Sec. 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, (1360) (Act No. 45 of 1860). Now, therefore in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act No. 5 of 1898) and on the grounds mentioned above, the Governor is pleased to declare every copy of the aforesaid books and of any other document containing copies, reprints and translation of extracts, (from the said books to be forfeited to Government. APPENDIX Book-Sachchi Book-The Ramayan (Translated Ramayan (A in Hindi) True Reading) Page Lines Page Lines 12 12-16 VI 19-22 20 15-16 6 17-22 22 25-26 9 7-8 24 2-5 10 13-20 26 18-20 12 8-11 28 13-16 16 23-27 33 1-10 21 7-22 33 16-29 22 1-10 22 14-24 34 1-8 23 8-9 34 16-17 23 17-18 34 23 27 1-4 37 21-23 27 11-14 38 5-6 31 24-26 41 14-15 32 18-22 42 1-6 34 4-7 43 15-18 34 14-16 43 24-26 35 15-21 45 2-4 35 26-27 45 7-8. 36 1 45 11-21 36 6-7 46 4-7 36 23-26 46 17 37 8-9 46 22-24 38 22-22 47 22-24 39 9-10 48 8-9 39 17-19 48 14-15 39 28 48 22-24 40 1-2 51 18-20 43 18-19 52 5-6 44 17-27 52 10-17 47 3 54 9 50 7-10 57 3-6 69 5 73 18 73 1-2 77 11-13 73 19-24 78 5-9 74 6-10 78 21-23 22. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Harnam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1662 . This appeal has arisen from the decision of this court in Harnam Das v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 All 538 (SB), Asthana Roy and Sahai, JJ. dismissed the application holding that the book entitled "Sikh Met Khendan/Part I" was rightly forfeited by the State of Uttar Pradesh as the book contained matters which injured the feelings of the Sikhs. 23. dismissed the application holding that the book entitled "Sikh Met Khendan/Part I" was rightly forfeited by the State of Uttar Pradesh as the book contained matters which injured the feelings of the Sikhs. 23. In order to appreciate the point involved in the aforesaid Supreme Court case, the notification which was issued by the State Government has also to be looked into. This notification runs as below; "GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH (HOME DEPARTMENT POLICE-B) No. 3657-Z/VIII-B-558-1953 Dated, Lucknow July 30, 1953. NOTIFICATION (MISCELLANEOUS) In exercise of the power conferred by Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), the Government is pleased to declare the books in Hindi entitled "Sikh Met Khandan Part I" and "Bhoomika Nezam Sikh Met Khandan" written by Harnarain Das Sebok Harnam Singh of Gorakhpur, printed by Sumeth Kumar Gupta at the Bhaskar Press, Dehradun, and published by Harnam Das Sarraf of Gorakhpur and every copy of the said books and all other documents containing copies, reports and translations of or extracts from the said books forfeited to the Government on the ground that the said books contain matter, the publication of which is punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. By order, Sd/- S. N. Mehrotra, Deputy Registrar". 24. Dealing with this case, the Supreme Court observed as below : "The section further requires the Government to state the grounds of its opinion. It is this order, that is, the order based on the grounds stated, which the party affected has been given by Section 99-B the right to move the High Court to set aside. It would follow that all that Section 99-B can require the party to do is to show that that order was improper. Whether that order was proper or not would, of course, depend only on the merits of the grounds on which it was based; whether another order to the same effect could have been made on other grounds is irrelevant, for that would not show the validity of the order actually made, that order would be bad if the grounds on which it is made do not support it. Two orders, though both saying that a publication contains matter which offends the same section of the Penal Code cannot be the same or an identical order if the reasons why they are considered so to offend the section of the Penal Code concerned are different. Now Section 99-B says that a person affected by the order may move the High Court to set it aside on the ground that the book "did not contain any seditious or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 99-A". The matter mentioned here must, for the reasons stated, refer only to such matter on which for grounds stated by it, the Government's opinion has been based." 25. Further on, it was observed by the Supreme Court as below : "Indeed the position in law that the courts cannot add to the grounds, to which the legislature has limited the right of relief is so very clear and unassailable that the learned counsel for the appellant did not like to suggest that a ground can be added. To overcome this difficulty that the courts cannot add to the grounds of relief specified in S. 99-B and Section 99-D an ingenious argument has been put forward that in order that the High Court can give proper relief on the very ground mentioned in Sec. 99-B and Section 99-D, it is essential that the Government's order should state the grounds of its opinion. The steps of the argument may be shortly stated thus : The Government has formed an opinion. The High Court has to see that that opinion is correct. In order to do this the High Court must know what weighed with the Government in coming to its opinion. Therefore, without the grounds of the Government's opinion the High Court cannot be satisfied within the meaning of Section 99-D that the issue of the newspaper contained the matter complained of." 26. The notification which the Supreme Court considered gave no reason whatsoever as to what were the offending portions of the "Sikh Met Khandan/Part I" and "Bhoomika Nezam Sikh Met Khandan" which offended the Sikh religion. The court had therefore to go through the entire book and to find out as to what portions of the book, if any, injured the feelings of those who professed Sikh religion. The court had therefore to go through the entire book and to find out as to what portions of the book, if any, injured the feelings of those who professed Sikh religion. The notification in Harnam Das's case was virtually a reproduction of Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving any reason or ground for coming to the conclusion that the book, referred to above injured the feelings of the Sikhs. In the instant case, as shown above, the offending portions of the book were given in the annexure of the notification and it was mentioned that the books. 'Sachchi Ramayan' and The Ramayana (A True Reading)" offended the feelings of the Hindus. The pages and the lines of the 'Sachchi Ramayan' as well as "The Ramayana (A True Reading)" were mentioned in the annexure. On the basis of these extracts of the books, the Government came to the conclusion that the book 'Sachchi Ramayan' and the book "The Ramayana (A True Reading)" offended the feelings of the Hindus. The recital in the notification that "........................ published by Sri Lalai Singh Yadav, Ashok Pustakalaya Jhinjhak, district Kanpur and printed by Sri Hub Lal Azed, Adarsh Printing Press, Jhinjhak district Kanpur, contain matters detailed in the Appendix to this notification which are deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India namely the Hindus by insulting their religion and religious belief" clearly indicated that on the basis of the relevant portions mentioned in this annexure of the notification, the Government formed their opinion that the book outraged the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India namely the Hindus. 27. It was next contended that the Government should have given some reasons as to how and why these extracts were liable to offend the feelings of the Hindus. This, in my opinion, will not amount to a ground by the State Government but would amount to an argument in support of the State Government's opinion. The question as to how these extracts offending the feelings of the Hindus mentioned in the notification would amount to giving the argument in support of the grounds. In this connection, it has to be seen as to what is the dictionary meaning of the word 'gound'. The question as to how these extracts offending the feelings of the Hindus mentioned in the notification would amount to giving the argument in support of the grounds. In this connection, it has to be seen as to what is the dictionary meaning of the word 'gound'. In Webster's Dictionary, the meaning of the word 'ground' is given as below :- "The foundation or basis on which knowledge, belief or conviction rests; a premise, reason, or collection of data upon which something (as a legal action or argument) is made to rely for cogency or validity (the reference to natural law as a - for the authority of civil law." 28. This means that the foundation on which the opinion is based should be given. The stress which was laid by the Supreme Court in Harnam's case was on the words "Grounds for the opinion" and not the reasoning or argument for that ground. 29. In Arun Ranjan Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal, (1955) 59 Cal. WN 495 (SB) this very question came for discussion. While dealing with the case, Chakravartti, C.J. observed as below : "It is useful to consider here what is meant by grounds of opinion. The formation of an opinion by the Government is undoubtedly the grounds for the action taken by them, but the grounds for the opinion are obviously different. The opinion, after it has been formed, furnishes a ground to Government for taking the action contemplated, but the grounds on which the opinion itself is formed are and must be other grounds. Those grounds must necessarily be the import or the effect or the tendency of matters contained in the offending publication, either as a whole or any portions of it as illustrated by passages which Government may choose". 30. Those grounds must necessarily be the import or the effect or the tendency of matters contained in the offending publication, either as a whole or any portions of it as illustrated by passages which Government may choose". 30. Further on, it was observed as below : "Such a person can succeed under the section only if he can prove that the book or paper forfeited did not contain matter of such a nature as would enable the person questioning it before this court, to make out the grounds specified under the section only if he can prove that the book or paper forfeited did not contain matter of such a nature as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of Sec. 99-A. Unless he knows whether the whole of the book or paper was considered by Government as bearing an objectionable character of one or other of the kinds specified in Section 99-A or whether Government considered certain particular passages objectionable, it is quite important for him to make out that the book or paper or portions of it, considered by Government to have a certain import or effect or tendency, do not in fact have such effect or import or tendency and that, therefore, the order made was not justified. It will be noticed that Section 99-A does not merely give a description of the matters which are within the ambit of the section and which would justify Government in making an order of forefeiture, it also says that the matter must be such that its publication is punishable under either Section 124-A or Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. A person questioning an order of forfeiture may, therefore, require to establish that the book or publication concerned did not attract either of the sections of the Penal Code mentioned in Section 99-A and that in taking a view to the contrary. Government had been wrong. A person questioning an order of forfeiture may, therefore, require to establish that the book or publication concerned did not attract either of the sections of the Penal Code mentioned in Section 99-A and that in taking a view to the contrary. Government had been wrong. It is quite impossible to make out a ground of that character, unless one knows what passage or passages were regarded by Government as offending against the sections of the Penal Code mentioned in Section 99-A. Nor is it easy to see how Government themselves can come to an opinion that a particular publication or any portion of it offends against certain sections of the Indian Penal Code unless they have present to their mind particular passages which in their opinion so offend. It appears to me that by requiring Government to state the grounds of their opinion in the order, the Legislature has required them to place on record proof that they had really applied their minds to the contents of the publication and were not making the order merely from a sweeping and uncritical feeling of dislike" 31. In the case of Arun Ranjan Ghosh, in the notification, no grounds were given and it was only mentioned that the book contained matters which deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens by insulting the religion or religious belief of that class and it promotes feeling of hatred between different classes of citizens of India. What was observed by Chakravartti, C.J. and referred to above, lends support to my view that the offending portion of the book has to be given in the notification as a ground so that the court could for itself judge as to whether the offending portions of the book really injured the feelings of the citizens of India or a class of citizens or the religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens of the Indian Union. 32. This very question came for decision in Mohammad Khalid v. Chief Commr. Delhi, AIR 1968 Delhi 13 (SB). In this case, the above referred Supreme Court case was also referred and was held that it was absolutely necessary for the State Government to give the grounds for its opinion for forfeiting a book publication or newspaper under Section 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Delhi, AIR 1968 Delhi 13 (SB). In this case, the above referred Supreme Court case was also referred and was held that it was absolutely necessary for the State Government to give the grounds for its opinion for forfeiting a book publication or newspaper under Section 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case also, the notification was quoted in the judgment which would go to show that except stating that the book "Khilafat-i-Moswia wa Yazid" contained matter which deliberately and maliciously intended to promote a feeling of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India, no ground was given. Except quoting Sec. 153 I.P.C. no other ground was given therein on which the court could judge as to what was the matter in that book on account of which the Government formed their opinion that the book promoted the feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India. The relevant observation in his case is as below : "Perusal of Section 99-A reproduced above, goes to show that the Government while issuing a notification under that section has to state the grounds of its opinion on the basis of which it comes to the conclusion that the newspaper, book or document contains any seditious matter or any matter which promotes or is intended to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India or it is deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, that is to say, in matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 124-A, or Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, the grounds of opinion are a vital and essential part of the notification because it is these grounds which would reveal the justification for the issuance of the notification. The requirement about stating the grounds of opinion of the State Government, being an imperative and integral part of the section, it would follow that a notification in order to be legal and effective must comply with and fulfil that requirement. Such a compliance is a sine qua non of the validity of the notification and a notification which does not incorporate the grounds of opinion, would be not in conformity with law". 33. Such a compliance is a sine qua non of the validity of the notification and a notification which does not incorporate the grounds of opinion, would be not in conformity with law". 33. A perusal of the above decided case by the Supreme Court shows that the Supreme Court laid down the law that under Section 99-A, Cr.P.C. what was required of the State Government was that the State Government must give its grounds for their opinion that the publication, book or newspaper injured the feelings of a class of citizen of India. Nothing more is required for the State Government for making an order of forfeiture under Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The view I have taken also finds support from the above cited cases of the Delhi High Court and the Calcutta High Court. The words 'opinion', 'ground' and 'reason' have different dictionary meanings and therefore in the above decisions, the unanimous opinion of the different High Courts and the Supreme Court was that the grounds of opinion should be given and not the reasons or the arguments on account of which action was taken under Sec. 99-A. In all the reported cases, except quoting the ingredients of the section, nothing else was given in the notification on which the opinion of the State Government could be tested by the court. In the instant case, the Government have given the grounds on which the action under Section 99 was taken. 34. It is a matter of common experience that in the grounds of appeal which a litigant files in criminal, civil or any other type of cases, the grounds do not contain arguments in support of the ground, rather such argumentative grounds had been deprecated by law courts. If a litigant in a criminal appeal puts a ground that the judgment of the trial court was based on misreading of evidence, he has to put in that ground the relevant portion of the statement and not the argument in support of the fact that the evidence had been misread by the trial court. At the time of the argument, this litigant would be perfectly within his rights to build arguments and give reasons as to how the trial court has misread the evidence. At the time of the argument, this litigant would be perfectly within his rights to build arguments and give reasons as to how the trial court has misread the evidence. Similarly, in the instant case, the Government have given in the annexure all the items of the 'Sachchi Ramayan' and 'the Ramayana (A True Reading)' which injured the feelings of a class of citizens of India namely Hindus. 35. Therefore, in the instant case, it cannot be said that the government have not given the grounds for their opinion. On the other hand, all the grounds an which the Government based their opinion have been given in the notification and it is for the court to see and judge if those items of the annexure were such which injured the feelings of a class of citizens namely Hindus and whether the Government was justified in passing the order of forfeiture under Section 99-A on the above grounds. 36. In the instant case, as was in the above cited cases, we have not to fall back on the book itself to find out as to what were the offending portions which injured the religion or religious feelings of Hindus. The offending portions are before the Court and the Court has to find out if the order under Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was justified. In view of large number of decisions of different High Courts and the Supreme Court, it cannot be doubted that the notification under Section 99-A must contain the grounds of opinion on which the order of forfeiture was issued. In all the cited cases, except saving that the books which were in question in each case offended the religious feelings of certain class of citizens no ground was mentioned. But this case materially differs from the facts of the cases referred to above, because in my opinion, the grounds have been given by the State and it is for this court to see as to whether these grounds were sufficient for taking an action under Section 99-A. 37. Section 99-B to Section 99-G lay down the procedure which the special bench has to follow. Section 99-B to Section 99-G lay down the procedure which the special bench has to follow. Under Section 99-D, the special bench has to see that if it is not satisfied that the newspaper, book or document contain any seditious matter, it shall set aside the order under Section 99-A. It has therefore to see as to whether the items of the annexure which have been reproduced by me earlier are not such on which the order of forfeiture should have been made. 38. Before deciding this Question, another question was raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the class of Hindus whose religious feeling is said to have been injured has not been defined and, therefore, the notification was vague and indefinite. In this connection, it has therefore to be seen as to who is a Hindu and what are the religious beliefs of the Hindus or the different sects of Hindus. This Question came up for decision in Shastri Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishva, AIR 1966 SC 1119 . The relevant portion runs as below : "Who are Hindus and what are the broad features of Hindu religion, that must be the first part of our enquiry in dealing with the present controversy between the parties. The historical and etymological genesis of the word 'Hindu' has given rise to a controversy amongst indologists; but the view had been accepted by scholars appears to be that the word "Hindu" is derived from the river Sindhu which flows, from the Punjab. "That part of the great Aryan race," says Monier Williams, which immigrated from Central Asia, that the mountain passes into India, set first in the district near river Sindhu (now called the Indus). The Persians pronounced this word Hindu and named their Aryan brethren Hindus. The Greeks, who probably gained their first ideas of India from the Persians, dropped the hard aspirate and called the Hindus 'Indio'. The Encyclopaedia of religion and ethics. Vol. VI, has described "Hinduism" as the title applied to that form of religion which prevails among the vast majority of the present population of the Indian empire (p. 686). As Dr. Radhakrishnan has observed the Hindu civilization is so called, since its original founders or earliest followers occupied the territory drained by the Sindhu (the Indus) river system corresponding to the North West Frontier Provinces and the Punjab." 39. As Dr. Radhakrishnan has observed the Hindu civilization is so called, since its original founders or earliest followers occupied the territory drained by the Sindhu (the Indus) river system corresponding to the North West Frontier Provinces and the Punjab." 39. Further on it was observed that : "Having posed these Questions which disturbed foreigners when they think of Hinduism. Dr. Radhakrishnan has explained how Hinduism has steadily absorbed the customs and ideas of peoples with whom it has come into contact and has thus been able to maintain its supremacy and its youth. The term 'Hindu' according to Dr. Radhakrishnan had originally a territorial and not a credal significance. It implied residence in a well defined geographical area. Aboriginal tribes, savage and half civilized people, the cultured Dravidians and the Vedic Aryans were all Hindus as they were the sons of the same mother. The Hindu thinkers reckoned with the striking fact that the men and women dwelling in India belonged to different communities, worshipped different Gods and practiced different rites (4) (Kurma Purana)". 40. Further on it does observe that : "Do the Hindus worship at their temples the same set or particular set of Gods ? That is another question which can be asked in this connection; and the answer to this question again has to be in the negative. Indeed there are certain sections of the Hindu community which do not believe in the worship of the idols; and as regards those sections of the Hindu community which believed in the worship of idols, their idols differ from community to community and it cannot be said that one definite idol or a definite number of idols are worshipped by all the Hindus in general. In the Hindu pantheon, the first Gods that were worshipped in Vedic times were mainly Indra, Varuna, Vayu and Agni. Later Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh came to be worshipped. In course of time, Rama and Krishna secured a place of pride in the Hindu Pantheon and gradually has different philosophic concepts held sway in different sects and in different sections of the Hindu community, a large number of Gods were added, with the result that today, the Hindu Pantheon presents the spectacle of very large number of Gods who are worshipped by different sections of the Hindus". 41. 41. The following extract by R. C. Majundar in his work "The History and Culture of the Indian People" for which the foreword was written by K. M. Munshi can also be read with advantage in this connection : "The Gupta Emperor Chandpa Gupta II was a devout follower of the Bhagveta religion, one of the many names by which Vaishenavism was known. He assumed the title Parama Bhagvata, a usage followed by his successors". ".............. An important feature of the Bhagvata religion in the Gupta age was the popular worship of Avataras i.e. Descents of incarnations of Vishnu Epigraphic and literary records of the period throw light on the evolution of the theory of Avatara, the term of which is however to be traced in the later Vedic literature". 42. Then he proceeded to give the different Avtars of Vaishneva namely Varaha, Matsya, Kurma, Narasimha, Vamana, Krishna, Ram Bhargava Ram Dashrath, Buddha and Kaliki. While dealing with Ram Avtar, the following reference in this book would be of value :- "In the passage of the late Narayania section of the Mahabharata mention is made only of four avataras viz. Boar, Dwarf, Men-loin and Man (Vasudeva-Krishna). In another passage of the same section, the deified beings Ram Bhargava and Ram Dasarathi are added to the list making a total of six avataras, while a third passage gives the list of ten incarnations by adding Hamsa, Kurma, Matsya and Kalki (Kalkin) to the above six. According to the Matsya Purana, it also gives a list of ten incarnations. There were three divine avataras viz. Narayana Narasimha, and Vamana as well as seven human avataras viz., Dattatraya, Mandhatri, Rama son of Jamadagni. Rama son of Dasaratha, Vedayyasa, Buddha and Kalki" 43. The Vaishnite formed a section of Hindus from north to south. They believe in the ten Avtars of which Ram son of Dashrath was one. 44. Before proceeding further on this question, it has to be seen as to whether the notices of the Ramayan, Mahabharat, and the other books such as Upnishads Purans and works of writers on the question as to who are Hindus who believed in Ram as incarnation of God Vishnu be taken or not. 44. Before proceeding further on this question, it has to be seen as to whether the notices of the Ramayan, Mahabharat, and the other books such as Upnishads Purans and works of writers on the question as to who are Hindus who believed in Ram as incarnation of God Vishnu be taken or not. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that notice of this fact from Ramayan cannot be taken under, Section 57 of the Evidence Act, because it is neither a book of literature or book of history. Before coming to this question, I would like to say as to whether the Evidence Act applies to the proceedings under Section 99-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a proceeding under Section 99-B, Cri.P.C. the State has to join issues and in the matter as to whether the book, newspaper or document comes under the purview of Section 99-A. Cr.P.C. The question has then to be decided judicially and as such there cannot be any doubt that the proceedings under Section 99-A, Cr.P.C. are judicial proceedings. Section 1 of the Evidence Act reads as below : "1. This Act may be called the Indian Evidence Act. It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including Courts-Martial, other than Courts Martial convened under the Army Act (44 and 45 Vic. C. 58). The Naval Discipline Act, (29 and 30 Vic. C. 109) or * * * the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 or the Air Force Act but not to affidavits presented to any court or officer, not to proceedings before an arbitrator; and it shall come into force, on the first day of September, 1872." 45. A reading of the above section of the Evidence Act leaves no room for doubt that the entire Evidence Act applies to the proceedings under section 99-A, Cr.P.C. 46. It has now to be seen if judicial notice under Section 57 Evidence Act can be taken of Ramayan and other books relating to Ramayan and the fact as to who are Hindus. 47. Judicial notice was taken by different High Courts of the following facts : 48. It has now to be seen if judicial notice under Section 57 Evidence Act can be taken of Ramayan and other books relating to Ramayan and the fact as to who are Hindus. 47. Judicial notice was taken by different High Courts of the following facts : 48. In Jubba Mallah v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Pat 58 judicial notice was taken of the fact that there was a political disturbance in August 1942 wherein public buildings over a wide area were attacked by persons who professed to be members of the Congress Party. 49. In another case Abida Khatoon v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 All 260 , judicial notice was taken of the fact that there was a communal disturbance in U.P. in 1955 because it was a notorious fact. 50. In Commr. of Income-tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Radhaswami Satsang Sabha AIR 1954 All 291, judicial notice was taken of the fact that there is a flourishing satgang at Agra and there are centres in most of the big cities of U.P. including Allahabad. 51. In another case Salig Ram v. Emperor, AIR 1943 All 26, judicial notice was taken of the August 1942 disturbances in India. In B. C. Shukla v. Provincial Govt. C.P. and Berar, (AIR 1947 Nag 1 (SB)) judicial notice was taken of a similar fact. 52. Section 57 Evidence Act reads is below : "The court shall take judicial notice of the following facts : (1) ..................... (2) .................... (3) ..................... (4) ..................... (5) ..................... (6) ..................... (7) ..................... (8) ..................... (9) ..................... (10) ..................... (11) ..................... (12) ..................... (13) The rule of the road (on the land or at sea) In all these and also on all matters of public history, literature, science or art, the court may resort for its aid to appreciate books or documents of reference. If the court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such person produces any such book or document as it may consider necessary to enable it to do so." 53. We are not concerned with clauses (1) to (12). Only clause (13) is relevant for the purposes of this case. In my opinion, judicial notice can be taken of important and notorious fact under Section 57(13) Evidence Act. 54. We are not concerned with clauses (1) to (12). Only clause (13) is relevant for the purposes of this case. In my opinion, judicial notice can be taken of important and notorious fact under Section 57(13) Evidence Act. 54. Taking judicial notice of a fact under Section 57 means that such a fact can be used in evidence without asking any of the parties to prove the same in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. The fact which is of history, literature, science or is such a notorious or important fact that one cannot shut his eyes to them had also come under the provisions of Section 57 of the Evidence Act. It cannot be said that Ramayana is not a book of History or literature. It has been widely acknowledged even, by eminent writers and thinkers of foreign countries that the Ramayana of Balmiki or Rani Charitra Manas of Tulsidas are fine specimen of good poetry and literature. One cannot deny that even to those who do not believe Ramayan to be a religious book, it is certainly a book of history. As shown above, judicial notice was taken by different High Courts of the August 1942 Disturbances in India, communal riots in U.P. in 1955. If the question arises as to whether there is High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, a judicial notice of the same shall be taken and one shall not be called upon to prove this fact. The following quotations from eminent writers will show what they say about Ramayana. 55. Ramayana, particularly in Northern India, has been accepted to be a religious book giving the life history and teachings of Ram as an Avtar. Griffeth, a well known authority on Ramayana, has said thus :- "Ramayana of Tulsidas is more popular and more honoured by the people of northern and western provinces than the Bible by the corresponding classes in England." 56. In his essay, "The Ramayan the Immortal Epic", Jawahar Lal Nehru says as below : "Among our great festivals, which spread joy and comradeship amongst all our people, there is none which is so popular, more especially in Northern India, than the celebration of the story of Rama and Sita. Valmiki wrote his immortal epic and in later days, Tulsidas, writing in homely language, made this story a part of the texture of the lives of our people. Valmiki wrote his immortal epic and in later days, Tulsidas, writing in homely language, made this story a part of the texture of the lives of our people. A story and a book which has had this powerful influence on millions of people during some millenniums of our changing history, must have peculiar virtue in it." 57. Further on, he says : "We must have an intellectual understanding of these mighty processes of history. We must have even more, an emotional awareness of our past and present, in order to try to give a right direction to the future. I do not think any person can understand India or her people fully without possessing a knowledge of the two magnificent epics that are India's pride and treasure." 58. It goes without saving that Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the late Prime Minister of India, referred the Ram Charitra Manas and the Mahabharat as the two magnificent epics of India. Ramayana has been translated in different languages in India and all over the world. In twelfth century, Kunha Ramayan was written in Tamil. It is based on Balmiki Ramayan. Rang Nath wrote a book on Ram Katha in Telugu in 13th Century. Moll said to be a Kubher girl wrote Moll Ramayan in 16th century Kendesh translated Balmiki Ramayana in Malayalam in 15th century. Diwakar Prakash Bhatt wrote the Kasturi Ramayana. In Assamese we have Madhav Gandhi's Ramayan Kriwas Ojha wrote Ram Pandia in Bengali. Reneshwar Dutt wrote in Bengali Adhubhut Ramayan and Chakravarty wrote Ramayan Gatha. We have Ramayan in Gujrati, Marhatti, Urdu and Persian. 59. Ramayan has its place even in Tibet. Hindsagar and Indo China though some of the facts and characters differ. Ramayan was translated by Kaples in French. Juynball translated Ramayan in Dutch, Keith Crowsa Ibbetson and Griffeth have translated Ramayana or have written about it. Thus it is established that Ramayan has been translated in different languages of the world. 60. The Balmiki Ramayan is an excellent work of art and poetry in Sanskrit whereas the Ram Charitra Manas of Tulsidas is equally an excellent work of art, poetry and literature. It was written at an age when Sanskrit had lost its sway over the general public. 60. The Balmiki Ramayan is an excellent work of art and poetry in Sanskrit whereas the Ram Charitra Manas of Tulsidas is equally an excellent work of art, poetry and literature. It was written at an age when Sanskrit had lost its sway over the general public. Tulsidas felt that the teachings of Ram Avtar should reach the masses in the popular language and so inspired, he wrote the Ramayana in Nagri or to be more accurate in the Avadhi language so that the message of Ram could reach the masses at large. Balmiki was said to be an illiterate person. He wrote the Ramayana with the grace of Brahma. I am conscious of the fact that in recent years, some controversy has arisen as to whether Ram Chandra was an Avtar or an incarnation of God or a mortal and the son of a king. 61. D. S. Sharma in his book "Hinduism" thus notes about Ramayan : "The Ramayana of Tulsidas has only the outward form of Ramayana of Balmiki. The story is the same but the spirit is different. It is not an epic but long religious poems of Bhakti School, it emphasises throughout the doctrine of devotion to a personal God, the doctrine of Holi name and the doctrine of the sanctity of the Guru". 62. Annie Besent notes about Ramayana thus : "In the ideal figure of Sri Ramachandra we have a perfect man, he who in every relation of life-son, husband, brother king-sets an example of nobility and purity great as human imagination can depict. We have in him the highest perfection to which human qualities can be concerned, and it is this perfect humanity tried to its utmost, yet never found wanting, that acts as so inspiring and ideal through the length and breadth of India". 63. Sri Aurbindo in his essay "The Sanskrit Kavya" thus says about Valmiki :- "Valmiki therefore, the father of our secular poetry stands for that early and finely moral civilization which was true heroic age of the Hindu spirit". 64. Vivekananda, in his essay "The epic Story" after narrating the achievements of Ram, writes that "now Ram was God incarnate otherwise how could he have done all this ? He was an incarnation of God according to Hindus. They believe him to be the seventh incarnation of God". 64. Vivekananda, in his essay "The epic Story" after narrating the achievements of Ram, writes that "now Ram was God incarnate otherwise how could he have done all this ? He was an incarnation of God according to Hindus. They believe him to be the seventh incarnation of God". Further on, he writes as below :- "This is the great ancient epic of India. When you study the characters, you can at once find out how different is the ideal of India from that of the West. For the race, Sita stands as the ideal of suffering. The West says "Do show your power by doing" India says "show your power by suffering". The West has solved the problem how much a man can have India has solved the problem of how much a man cannot have. The two extremes, you see. Sita is a typical of India the idealised India. The question is not whether she lived, whether the story is history or not, we know that the ideal is there. There is no other Pauranika story that has so permeated the whole nation, so entered into its very life, and has so mingled with every group of the race, as this ideal of Sita is the name of India for everything that is good, pure and holy everything in a woman we call womanly. Through all the sufferings she experienced, there is not one harsh word against Ram. She takes as her duty, and performs her own part in it. Think of the terrible injustice of her being exiled to the forest. But Sita knows no bitterness. That is again, the Indian ideal says the ancient Buddha : "When a man hurts you and you turn back to hurt him, that would not cure the first injury; it would only create in the World one more wickedness". Sita was a true Indian by nature; she never returned injury." 65. These writings by the well known authors, religious preceptors and thinkers leave no room for doubt that Sita is worshipped by Hindus as ideal of womanhood and the Indian woman tries to mould her life and character according to the ideals set up by Sita. In the Hindu society, if a woman is called Sita or Savitri she feels that the highest honour which she could aspire had been bestowed on her. In the Hindu society, if a woman is called Sita or Savitri she feels that the highest honour which she could aspire had been bestowed on her. Ram Chandra from ages has been worshipped as an incarnation of God and has been accepted so by the Hindus generally. In my opinion, judicial notices could be taken of these "writings and utterances of these writers and thinkers about Ramayana under Section 57(13) Evidence Act. 66. It is now to be seen as to what is the belief of Hindus about Ram and Ramayana. It is a belief of the Hindus that whenever, there has been the decline of religion and Dharma. God takes his birth as an Avtar. 67. "O Arjun whenever there is decline of righteousness and advent of unrighteousness, I creat myself. I come forward again and again in order to protect the virtuous persons, to annihilate the persons of evil deeds to establish the rule of righteousness". 68. Balmiki writes in Ramayan that whoever reads the Ramayana enjoys the blessings of the Lord in abundance. 69. "Ram after enjoying the kingdom will depart for Brahma Loka. One who reads the Holi Ram Charitra Manas which removes sins, which is sacred and which is approved by Vedas, gets rid of all sins." 70. The following Shloka in Balmiki's Ramayan will show that on the prayer of Rishi Vishnu agreed to be born as son of Dasrath. 71. "Thereafter He with eyes like Lotus petals dividing Himself with four forms pleased His father the king Dasratha." and then after giving word Vishnu after a talk with Bramhaji become out of sight. "He having so resolved and having invoked Brahma disappeared being worshipped by Gods and great sages." Thus according to Balmiki and the general belief of Hindus, it was Vishnu who took the Avtar of Rama to fight the evilforces to kill Ravan. 72. About the birth of Ram, Valmiki writes : 73. "At the opportune moment, Kaushalya gave birth to Ram who was endowed with all celestial signs and who was the Master of the whole universe and worthy of reverence of all regions." 74. These quotations from Valmiki abundantly prove that Ram is incarnation of God. Sita, according to Valmiki, is incarnation of Lakshmi. They are so worshipped by Hindus who believe in the ten avtars of Vishnu. These quotations from Valmiki abundantly prove that Ram is incarnation of God. Sita, according to Valmiki, is incarnation of Lakshmi. They are so worshipped by Hindus who believe in the ten avtars of Vishnu. Tulsidas says that the Almighty God takes birth and performs his Lila. 75. Ram Charitra Manas is full of recitals describing Ram as God Almighty. After his birth. He shows his real self. 76. According to Ram Charitra Manas, Rishi Agasta, Rishi Bhardwaj, Nishel, Sabri, Hanuman, Shiva, Angad, Ball, Bhibhishan, Mandodri wife of Ravan have worshipped Ram as God. All this, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that Hindus with exception of its certain sects do believe that Ramayana is a religious book and Ram is incarnation, of God who in his human form performed acts which could not be performed by an ordinary mortal. In this light, it has therefore, to be seen if the alleged offending items of the Ramayana (A True Reading) and Sachchi Ramayan injure the religious feeling of the aforesaid Hindus. 77. In order to show that what was written in the Sachchi Ramayan was supported by Balmiki Ramayana, the learned counsel for the applicant read over certain Shloks of the Balmiki Ramayana. One of the Shloks relates to that incident when Sita was forcibly taken away by Ravan. Ram narrates to Lakshman the change of the season and says that he was feeling very much the separation of Sita. Even if Ram be taken to be a mortal, he cannot be said to be a 'Kamuk' if he has excessive love for his wife or if he is unable to bear his separation. In order to show that Ram was licentious, a translation from Balmiki Ramayana was read over by the learned counsel for the applicant where it was said that when Ram went to the jungle young girls and all luxuries were sent with him so that he may not feel the want of the luxuries to which he was accustomed. The Balmiki Ramayana itself shows that all those who come out of Ayodhya with Ram were returned by him and only Ram, Sita and Lakshman went to the jungle. This was also a misreading of the Balmiki Ramayana. The Balmiki Ramayana itself shows that all those who come out of Ayodhya with Ram were returned by him and only Ram, Sita and Lakshman went to the jungle. This was also a misreading of the Balmiki Ramayana. One has to read a book or a writing with reference to its context and not to take out single line divorced from its context and to give a meaning different than the context. 78. No attempt was made to show that the other items of the appendix were supported by Balmiki Ramayana or any other Ramayana. The other books referred to in the application on which the Ramayana (A True Reading) and the Sachchi Ramayana are said to be based are not even shown to us. 79. I shall now take up the items of the appendix to see if they do or do not injure the religious feelings of the Hindus. The second item is at page 6 lines 17 to 22 of the Ramayana (A True Reading) and page 20 lines 15 to 16 of Sachchi Ramayana which runs as below : "Ram was wicked in thought and deed was an embodiment of lies, treachery, artifice and cunningness, hard-heartedness greediness, murder drunkenness, flesh eating, arrowing of the innocent covertly, wicked associations, unmanliness and what not". 80. Tolerance is the essence of all Religions. Even if Ramaswami and Lalai Singh Yadav are advocates of the theory that Ravan was a hero and he was worshipped as a saint and embodiment of all virtues, they had absolutely no right to abuse Ram in such unrestrained language and that too knowing that Ram is worshipped in India particularly Northern India by a vast majority of Hindus as incarnation of God. There can, therefore, no room for doubt that the above item of the annexure is likely to injure the feelings of the above Hindus. 81. The other item is at page 10 lines 13 to 20 of the Ramayana (A True Reading) and page 24 lines 2 to 5 of Sachchi Ramayana. These lines read thus : "Dasaratha made present rather as fees for the performance of the Yagam, his first wife Kausalya along with his other two wives Sumitra and Kaikayi, to three priests. These priests having done full justice to their animal passion delivered the ladies back to the king who made no bones about it (Balkandam 14th Chapter). These lines read thus : "Dasaratha made present rather as fees for the performance of the Yagam, his first wife Kausalya along with his other two wives Sumitra and Kaikayi, to three priests. These priests having done full justice to their animal passion delivered the ladies back to the king who made no bones about it (Balkandam 14th Chapter). It was after this that the ladies become pregnant." 82. According to Balmiki, Dasaratha performed Yagya for begetting son under the advice of Rishis. Khir was prepared in the Yagaya for Havan and a portion of it was given to his three queens in equal portion. It was then that Dasaratha had intercourse with his three wives who gave birth to Ram, Lakshman, Bharat and Satrughan. Rama was born to Kaushalya, Bharat to Kaikai and the other two to Sumitra. The Khir having been surcharged with Mantras and medicines might have made the Ranis capable of bearing children. Even if this aspect of the question is not taken into consideration, the above recital is certainly against the religious belief of Hindus and is likely to injure the religious feelings. Every religion has its own beliefs. Christ was born of virgin Mary who conceived through Holy Ghost. Even though it may appear to be against reason, the belief is there and one cannot make any such utterance which might be derogatory to Christian belief. Similarly what has been said in the disputed item is most certainly against the belief of those Hindus who believe Ram as God and Ramayana as a religious book. I am constrained to say that it is an outrageous statement made only with the intention to hurt the religious belief of the aforesaid Hindus. There are many instances in almost all religions which may not satisfy one's reason or understanding, but they cannot be permitted to make any statement derogatory to that belief. This item, in my opinion, is such which will hurt the feelings of aforesaid Hindus. 83. The next item which I now propose to consider is al page 12 lines 8 to 11 of the Ramayana (A True Reading) and page 26 lines 18 to 20 of Sachchi Ramayana. It runs thus :- "Take Sita's birth Sita's mother by the aid of some unknown husband for the time being begot Sita and threw the child away in a forest. It runs thus :- "Take Sita's birth Sita's mother by the aid of some unknown husband for the time being begot Sita and threw the child away in a forest. Sita herself confessed that her marriage had been delayed because of her unknown parentage". 84. Ram Charitra Manas says that Sita was of 16 years and Ram was of 25 years at the time of their marriage. The truth of the above statement is rather questionable. Even if it is a true unpleasant must not be spoken. It is what India teaches from the time of the sages. We have seen what Vivekanand tried to say about Sita. Such being the belief of the Hindus, the above statement must injure their religious feelings and belief. The reading of the life of great Ram Krishna Paramhans shows that he called the Mother Sita. It has truly been said that Sita represents the ideal womanhood. Making such disparaging remarks against Sita whom the Hindus who believe in Avtar take Sita as the Avtar of Lakshmi the concert of Vishnu. This is again a question of belief that Sita came out of the earth when Raja Janak was tilling the land as a religious rite to ward off famine. This belief howsoever against reason and common sense, one cannot be permitted to make any derogatory remarks against that belief in a country like ours where the Constitution enjoins the free practice of any religion, creed or belief. 85. Page 23 lines 17 and 18 of Ramayana (A True Reading) and page 34 lines 16 and 17 Sachchi Ramayan reads thus : "He called his father "A fool, an idiot". 86. This refers to Ram. This certainly is likely to injure the religious feelings and belief of Hindus who take him as ideal son and God. Even if an ill-mannered son were to call his father "a fool and idiot", people will resent it and think that son to be a degraded person. I do not think any Hindu can relish this statement even with an inch of salt I have looked into the Valmiki Ramayana, and Barn Charitra Manas of Tulsidas. I find that the truth is otherwise. When Dasaratha asks Ram to go to Jungle, he goes there without any murmur. He even takes Lakshman to task when he speaks harshly to Kaikai who was instrumental in sending Ram to Jungle. I find that the truth is otherwise. When Dasaratha asks Ram to go to Jungle, he goes there without any murmur. He even takes Lakshman to task when he speaks harshly to Kaikai who was instrumental in sending Ram to Jungle. To an average Hindu, who believes in Ram and Ramayana this statement will injure the feelings". 87. The next item which I shall now consider is on page 27 lines 11 to 14 of the Ramayana (A true reading) and page 37 lines 21 to 23 of Sachchi Ramayana. It runs thus : "Rama had undue lust for sexual pleasure. Rama killed and ate many lives unnecessarily." 88. According to Ramayana, Ram was a devout husband and true to Sita. He had no sexual relations with any other woman and that is why Mrs. Annie Basant as shown above called him an ideal husband. Swami Vivekanand called him "God Incarnation". Tulsi and Valmiki sang that Ram was God and Avtar of Vishnu. This statement is rather malicious and has been made with a deliberate intention to injure the religious feelings of the Hindus who believe in Rama and Ramayana. 89. Writing about Sita, Ramaswami writes at page 31 lines 24 to 26 of his book The Ramayan (A True Reading) that : "Her birth is doubtful and questionable (Ayodhya Kandam Chap. 66) She was older than Rama." 90. As said earlier, Sita was 16 years of age at the time of her marriage and Rama was 25 years old. This statement that Sita was older than Rama or her birth was questionable is likely to injure the feelings of the aforesaid Hindu. In the words of Swami Vivekanand, Sita was a typical of India - the idealised India. Such remarks about that Sita is certainly a bad taste. When one calls a woman as Sita or Savitri, he means that she has moulded herself on the ideal of Sita or Savitri and not that she is a bastard. The very thought about Sita's parentage being doubtful appears to be an abuse to ideal of Indian woman-hood. It will be all the more abuse to a Hindu who believed Sita as an Avtar of the concert of Vishnu. 91. The very thought about Sita's parentage being doubtful appears to be an abuse to ideal of Indian woman-hood. It will be all the more abuse to a Hindu who believed Sita as an Avtar of the concert of Vishnu. 91. The next item is at page 35 lines 26 and 27 and page 36 line 1 of the Ramayana (A True Reading) and page 45 lines 2 to 4 and 7 and 8 and also lines 6, 7, 22 to 25 of page 26 of the Ramayana (A True Reading) and lines 11 to 21 page 45 and lines 4 to 7 page 46 of Sachchi Ramayan which runs as below : "While Ravana was carrying her away seated in his lap she was half naked, herself denuding the upper half. (Aranya Kandam Chapter 54)". "Ravan said "Ah Sita, our company is chanced by the divine will. This is agreeable to the Rishis. (Aranya Kandam Chapter 55)". "Sita replied 'you are free to embrace this body of mine as you will. I need not protect it. I should not be besmirched that I have blundered'". 92. I have looked in Balmiki's Ramayana and it appears to be a misreading of the same. Sita rebuked Ravana and said that taking her away by Ravan would mean taking fire in ones clothes. She compared Rama and Ravan calling Rama a lion and Ravan a jackal. She was weeping all the while she was being on Rath by Ravan. Similar story is given in Ram Charitra Manas. It would be an insult to Indian womanhood, while Sita represents, to say that she opened her upper garments when she was in the lap of Ravan. It will amount to a blunt and distortion and deliberate attempt to injure the regious feelings of those Hindus who believe in Rama and Ramayana. About the rest of the statement the less said the better. It surpasses all sense of decency and restraint. Valmiki says that Janak while giving Sita in marriage told Rama that Sita was Pativrata. Sita has been depicted both by Valmiki and Tulsidas to be the embodiment of all virtues. Will not it be repulsive for the aforesaid Hindus when Sita is called a woman of easy virtues and moral. It surpasses all sense of decency and restraint. Valmiki says that Janak while giving Sita in marriage told Rama that Sita was Pativrata. Sita has been depicted both by Valmiki and Tulsidas to be the embodiment of all virtues. Will not it be repulsive for the aforesaid Hindus when Sita is called a woman of easy virtues and moral. What does it amount to except a clear abuse and a onslaught of the religious feelings of Hindus who worship Ram and Sita as deity. Is it not a fact that in large number of Mandirs in India, Ram and Sita are worshipped as deities. What would be the reaction of the minds of such Hindus who worship Ram and Sita as deities. In my opinion, what would be worse example than the above to injure the feelings of the aforesaid Hindus. The items at page 37 lines 8 and 9 page 38 lines 21 to 26 of the Ramayana (A True Reading) and page 46 lines 17 and 22 to 24 Sachchi Ramayana are clear example of an attempt to vilify the character of Sita. After going through Valmiki Ramayana which is the first work of Rama and Sita. I have not the least doubt in my mind that the statement made in the above pages are against the Valmiki version. These lines also show bad tests and deliberate onslaught on the religious belief of Hindus who worship Ram and Sita as deities. 93. Similar is the statement about Sita and Ram at page 39 lines 9 and 10 of Ramayana (A True Reading) and page 47 lines 23 and 24 of Sachchi Ramayana where it was said that : "It is according to Ramayana, we say, that Rama is an unworthy man and Sita an unchaste woman". 94. Making such amount only amounts to bad taste and as such it injures the feelings of Hindus referred above and that too without any jurisdiction. 95. At page 39 line 28 and page 40 line 1 of Ramayana (A True Reading) and page 48 lines 8, 9, 14 and 15 of Sachchi Ramayana, it has been said that : "............ any attempt to explain it away that neither Sita was adulterous nor Rama a scamp would mean that adultery and rascality are above reproach". 96. This portion of the book need no comment. any attempt to explain it away that neither Sita was adulterous nor Rama a scamp would mean that adultery and rascality are above reproach". 96. This portion of the book need no comment. Any man with a little common sense cannot fail to realise that the authors have showered filthest abuses on Rama and Sita and have made all possible efforts to vilify the characters of Rama and Sita. It will be really sad if such books are not forfeited in Uttar Pradesh where Ayodhya birth place of Ram in situated. 97. The other objectionable items of the annexure is at page 50 lines 7 to 10 of Ramayana (A True Reading) and page 54 line 9 of Sachchi Ramayana which reads thus about Hanuman : "He spoke to Sita in most obscene and slang terms on subjects (even about penis) (Sundara Kandam - Chapter 35) not to be discussed with woman". 98. The conception of Ramayana is is that Hanuman was a Bal Brahmachari and Mahabir. It is common knowledge that Hanuman is worshipped by Hindus as a deity. To speak in the above term about Hanuman will certainly injure the religious feelings and beliefs of the Hindus who worshipped him. 99. In all there are 36 items in the annexures of the notification on the basis of which the two books have been forfeited. I have considered all the 36 items which according to the notification injure the religious beliefs of the aforesaid Hindus. I have discussed only some of them and I think it is needless to discuss all of them. After weighing the pros and cons, I have no hesitation in saving that the applicant has failed to prove that the two books, referred to above, were forfeited without any reason and jurisdiction. On the other hand. I have no doubt whatsoever that the items mentioned in the annexure injure the religious beliefs and feelings of Hindus who worship Ram. Sita and Hanuman as deities and believe Ramayan to be a religious book. 100. It is next contended that the applicant or Ramaswami had no intention to injure the feelings or religious beliefs of Hindus. No direct evidence could be led about the intention. It was to be inferred to the objectionable portions of the books and the attending facts and circumstances. 100. It is next contended that the applicant or Ramaswami had no intention to injure the feelings or religious beliefs of Hindus. No direct evidence could be led about the intention. It was to be inferred to the objectionable portions of the books and the attending facts and circumstances. If a person showers filthy abuses and uses words which are highly derogatory and assailing character his intention cannot be anything else but to cause injury to the feelings of those who are concerned with it. We have seen the abusive language used for Ram and Sita by Ramaswami and Lalai Singh Yadav calling both of them to be persons of loose morals & of illegitimate birth. They had every right to worship Ravan but certainly they had no right to write about Ram and Sita anything which could hurt the feeling of Hindus believing them to be deities. If they felt that there was any matter in Ramayana by Valmiki or Ramcharitra Manas by Tulsidas which was derogetory to Ravan which injured their feelings, they could proceed according to law for redress of their grievance. An injury caused in reply to an injury is, as Buddha has said "Only creates one more wickedness in the world". 101. If Lalai Singh Yadav and Ramaswami have any grievance to the performance of Ramlila in Northern India, the remedy cannot be, in the words of Yadav, "turning it into Phansilila". Instead of abusing Ram and Sita, they could do it by descent arguments and persuasive methods. Thus from all the facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that these two books have been written and published with malicious intention of injuring the feelings of a class of Hindus. 102. The next argument is that Lalai Singh Yadav has only translated the book "The Ramayana (A True Reading). In Hindi with the name "Sachchi Ramanayana" and hence no action could be taken under Section 99-A Cr.P.C. He cannot escape the legal consequences on this ground. His translation "Sachchi Ramayana" being in a language prevalent in Northern India is likely to cause much harm than the Ramayana (A True Reading) which is in English. In Hindi with the name "Sachchi Ramanayana" and hence no action could be taken under Section 99-A Cr.P.C. He cannot escape the legal consequences on this ground. His translation "Sachchi Ramayana" being in a language prevalent in Northern India is likely to cause much harm than the Ramayana (A True Reading) which is in English. English not being the common language of the masses is not likely to reach the hands of Hindi knowing Hindus who form the vast majority of the citizen in the States of Northern India whereas the Hindi version which has been published and printed at Kanpur could be read by every Hindi knowing and English knowing Hindu citizen. It appears that the intention of translating Sachchi Ramayana in Hindi was only to circulate it in this part of the country where Ram is worshipped as God only to injure the religious feelings of the Hindus. Thus Lalai Singh Yadav cannot escape the legal consequence only because his book Sachchi Ramayana is only a translation of the book "The Ramayana (A True Reading) by Ramaswami. 103. In the result, in my opinion, the application has no force in it. It is hereby dismissed with Rs. 500/- as costs to the State. BY THE COURT : In accordance with the majority view, the petition is allowed with costs which is assessed at Rs. 300/- and the impugned order dated 8-12-1969 published in the U.P. Gazette dated 20-12-1969 is quashed. The respondent is directed to return or to cause to be returned all the forfeited conies of the two books "Ramayan - A True Reading" and "Sachchi Ramayan" to the petitioner. Petition allowed.