Anup Mandal Ki Apradhik Karyavahi Ke Viruddh Rajy Sarkar Dwara Jari Adhisuchnaye

SR No.: 006170
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Bharatiya Sanskruti Samanvay Samsthan Jodhpur
Publisher: Bharatiya Sanskruti Samanvay Samsthan Jodhpur
Publication Year: 2015
Total Pages: 122
Language: Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 14 MB

Page 64

10
16
Privy Council 85) Rajendra Singh & ors. vs. Snata Singh & Ors. (AIR 1973 SC 2537) Azizul Haq Kausar Naquvi & Anr. vs. The State (1980 Cr.L.J. 448) Singhraj Damodar Rupawate & Ors. vs. Nitin Gadre & ors. (2007 Cr.L.J. 3860) 16 Advocates Appeared Vijay Purohit, for Petitioner, B.K. Mehar, Public Prosecutor
Hon'ble TATIA, J. - Heard learned for the petitioner.
2. The State Government by exercising power under Section 99A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 (sic 1898) (which was in force at relevant time) forfeited two publications namely, 'Jagat Hitkarini' and 'Atm Puran' after opinion that the said publications (books) are intended to promote the feelings and hatred in different classes of citizen of India and are berately and maliciously intended to outrage religious feelings of the Jain (Bania) community by insulting the religion and the religious of that class and the publication of work punishable under Section 153A and 295 of Indian Penal Code. To give effect to the intention of the State Government to forfeit the said publication (books) a notification was published in gazette of the Rajasthan dated 5.8.1957, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner.
3. The peritioner has challenged the said notification dated 5.8.1957 after about 45 years for the date of the said notification, whereas as per Section 99A which was in force at time of publication of notification dated 5.8.1957 as well as under sub-section (1) of Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which is in force now), the period of limitation for challenge to such notification is two months from the date of publication of notification in official gazette. The petitioner was well aware that period of limitation is two months olny and the petitioner took a plea that prescribing period of limitation of two months for challenge to said notification in Section 96(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and submitted this petition without any application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of about 45 years.
4. To meet with the objection of the bar of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court may look into the broader aspect and may ignore the period of limitation prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 96 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner though took this plea but could not substaniate it by his own arguments nor with the help of any precedent on this point.
5. We may observed here that it is not necessary that every new plea based on the point of law must find support from judicial precedent, but if entirely new plea is taken in arguments then there must be some reasons and justification for the new plea which may
57