Chapter VII
Section 95 CrPC: Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for the same
New Law Update (2024)
Section 106 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Where any newspaper, or book, or any document, wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124A or section 153A or section 153B or section 292 or section 293 or section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the State Government may, by notification, 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, and thereupon any police officer may seize the same wherever found in India and any Magistrate may by warrant authorise any police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector to enter upon and search for the same in any premises where any copy of such issue or any such book or other document may be or may be reasonably suspected to be.
(2) In this section and in section 96—
(a) “newspaper” and “book” have the same meaning as in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867);
(b) “document” includes any painting, drawing or photograph, or other visible representation.
(3) No order passed or action taken under this section shall be called in question in any Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of section 96.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 95(1)
This subsection empowers the State Government to order the forfeiture of publications like newspapers, books, or documents if they contain content punishable under specific IPC sections, such as those related to sedition or obscenity. It also allows police to seize these materials and magistrates to issue search warrants.
Section 95(3)
This subsection specifies that any order or action taken under Section 95 can only be challenged in a court of law by following the specific procedure laid down in Section 96 of the CrPC, typically meaning an application to the High Court.
Landmark Judgements
Brajnandan Sharma v. State of Bihar (1950):
The Patna High Court, in this landmark case concerning the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 (which had provisions analogous to Section 95 CrPC), held that provisions allowing forfeiture of publications without judicial scrutiny violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
N. Raghavendra Rao v. State of Karnataka (1987):
This case highlighted the strict procedural requirements of Section 95 CrPC, emphasizing that the State Government’s notification for forfeiture must explicitly state the grounds of its opinion to ensure proper application of the law and allow for potential challenge under Section 96.