Guys Read this-Chinna Annamalai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 February, 1971

---

13. Even if what is contained in paragraph 5 of impugned order is to be construed as a ground--which we have held, is not--yet we are unable to see as to how the poster promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between two religious groups. The petitioner is admittedly a Hindu. He belongs to Asthika Sangham which believes in orthodox Hindu religion. He stated that what was done by the leader of Dravida Kazhagam party and his followers at Salem, had wounded his religious feelings. The Government did not take any action against those persons who are responsible for such acts shown in the poster, and, therefore, he printed the posters of the purpose of not only condemning the acts committed by those persons involved in Salem incident but also to bring it to the notice of the public and appeal to them not to vote for a person, who according to him, was the disciple of the Leader of the party who committed those acts depicted in the cartoon. The petitioner being an orthodox Hindu believing in idol worship cannot be said to have promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between two Hindu religious groups by printing and publishing this poster. There is clear indication in the poster itself, as seen from the words written on the top of the poster, that the posters were printed and published as part of the election propaganda against a particular political party. That the respondent construed it as such is disclosed in what is stated by them in paragraph 3 of their counter viz "that if the petitioner had really and genuinely intended only to condemn the alleged acts of beating the pictures of Sri Rama and Muruga, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have printed the words found on the top of the poster as heading for the cartoon". In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the Government had no basis for forming the opinion to make an order under Section 99-A.

14. We accordingly allow the petition and set aside the Government Notification of forfeiture dated 12th February 1971. The learned Advocate General represented at the Bar that the seizure of the posters was made by the police in the course of an investigation in respect of a crime alleged to have been committed under Section 295-A, I.P.C. The petitioner stated in his petition that the impugned posters were forfeited form the printing press in consequence of the order passed by the Government. In these circumstances, we order that the petitioner will be entitled to the return of the posters forthwith, if any, seized in consequence of he forfeiture order made by the Government. No costs.

15. Petition allowed.

Reply · Report Post