Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The petitioners also do not claim; very rightly too; that they have any such right. But their case is that the issue of magazines seized do not contain obscene material, whereas the learned Advocate General says that he had a cursory glance of the magazine and he found that the material published in the magazine prime facie and per-se constitute an offence punishable under Section 292 of the IPC. It is not within the scope of these petitions to consider as to whether the contents of the magazines seized constitute an offence punishable under Section 292 of the IPC. The said question has to be considered by the concerned Magistrate before whom the petitioners are being prosecuted, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SAMARESH BOSE v. AMAL MITRA, and other decisions on the point.

As can be seen from Section 94 it confers certain powers in respect of offences specified therein on the District Magistrate and other Magistrates named therein. Whenever the Magistrates have any information about the commission of offences to which that Section applies, they have the power to authorise any Police Officer by issuing a warrant to make a search and seize the offending material. One of the offences in respect of which action could be taken by the Magistrate is the publication of obscene material, constituting an offence under Section 292 of IPC. The contention of the petitioners that the above Section is a special provision and therefore the general provision in Section 102 cannot be invoked by the Police is on the face of it untenable. For instance, Section 94 refers to several objectionable articles such as counterfeit currency note, forged documents, false seals, and instruments and materials used for production of such objectionable materials. If the contention of the petitioners is correct, then the Police cannot take action even when they get the information that such objectionable articles are found with any particular person. Such an interpretation is clearly unwarranted. It would lead to absurdity. Therefore, it should be held that the power conferred under Section 94 on the Magistrate is such as could be exercised by them on receiving necessary information, whatever be the source and is independent of the power available to the Police under Section 102 of the Code and that the latter is not excluded from the former. Similar is the position regarding the power conferred under Section 95 of the Code on Government. If the Government comes to know that any printed material published or likely to be published constitutes an offence punishable under Section 124-A, 153-A, 153-B or Section 292, 293 or 295 of the I.P.C., the Government can declare every Such printed material as forfeited to Government and pursuant to such declaration the Police can seize all and every one of the copies of such printed material wherever available. Such a wide power is conferred on the Government in order to prevent the mischief that might result from publication and/or circulation of such material. Further by such an order the State has the power to prevent circulation or sale of such matter any where in the State. This is an extraordinary power conferred on the Government to meet an extraordinary situation and is not intended to curtail the power of the Police under Section 102 of the Act. Section 455 of the Act gives the clearest indication that power under Section 102 includes the power to seize all the copies of the magazine. That Section provides that the Court could order destruction of all the copies of the thing in respect of which the conviction was passed for an offence under Section 292 of the Act. Unless all the copies of the magazines are seized by the Police, it would be impossible for the Magistrate to order the destruction of all the copies of the magazines. Therefore, it should be held that under Section 102 the Police could seize all the copies of a magazine in which an offence under Section 292 of the IPC is suspected to have been committed and to produce them before the Magistrate to enable their destruction by an order made under Section 455, if the (commission of an offence under Section 292 is proved.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, I answer the question set out first, as follows:

"A police officer has the power to seize all the copies of an issue of a magazine printed and published and/or kept for sale in the book stalls on the ground that an offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code is suspected to have been committed through writings, articles and/or pictures published in the said issue of magazine."

Further, it is also clear that having regard to the Directive Principle enshrined in Article 49(f) and the nature of the offence under Section 292, the Police would be failing in their duty if they do not seize the magazines, books etc., through which an offence under Section 292 IPC appears to have been committed and prosecute the offenders, but I should add that the Police Officers should; before embarking upon seizure of books, magazines etc.; carefully scrutinise and examine the matter and make sure that an offence under Section 292 IPC is prima facie disclosed in them.

15. Before concluding, it is however, necessary to deal with another submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners regarding the manner of exercise of the power of seizure and launching prosecution. They submitted that even assuming that the Police have got the power to seize all the copies of the magazine, on the allegation that an offence under Section 292 IPC has been committed, they cannot prosecute the publisher and others in several Courts in respect of the same publication. They submitted that even if the seizure of all the copies of a magazine on the allegation that an offence under Section 292 IPC had been committed through them cannot be regarded as violation of the freedom of the Press and liberty guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution, the prosecution of publisher and printer before number of Courts, would be violative of the right guaranteed under the said article. They pointed out, that in that event they would have no work other than attending the Courts through out the year. They relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SMT. MANEKA GANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA, to show that procedure followed in taking actions under substantive law must be fair and this was the combined effect of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.