1. Shri Tilokchand Gopaldas, Editor and Publisher of the Sindhi Language paper 'Hindu', Ajmer was called upon under Sections 4 and 7 of Act 56 of 1951 to furnish a security in the sum of Rs. 500/-. Against that order, he appealed to this Court. That order was confirmed, but the amount of the security was reduced from, Rs. 500/- to Rs. 200/- only. Against that order, dated October 14, 1953, this application for leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been filed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that two substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution are involved in this appeal. The first question is whether Section 3(v) of Act 56 of 1951 is ultra vires the Constitution. The learned Public Prosecutor has urged that after the first amendment of the Constitution the phrase 'public order' occurs in Article 19(2). The argument is that there can be no doubt that reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression can be made in the interest of public order. The learned Public Prosecutor urges that no question of the interpretation of the Constitution is involved, what is involved is merely the question whether Section 3(v) of Act 56 of 1951 is a restriction in the interests of public order which is a question of fact and not a question of interpretation of the Constitution. I am inclined to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The second question involving the interpretation of the Constitution pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is with reference to Article 20(2) of the Constitution. In the present case, the petitioner was detained and then released on the advise of the Advisory Board. The contention of the learned Counsel is that for the same article the petitioner could not have been proceeded with. Again I am of opinion that no substantial question of interpretation of the Constitution is Involved as the question has been authoritatively' settled in - 'Maqbool Husain v. State of Bombay' : 1983ECR1598D(SC) .
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has next urged that the case comes within Article 134(1)(c) and this Court should certify that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court was wrong in holding that Section 247, Criminal P. C. did not apply to enquiries under Act 56 of 1951. The learned Counsel has not cited any authority in support of his contention. In my judgment, I had relied on - 'Asrafali Saiyal v. Nasu Sarkar' AIR 1927 Cal 343 (B). Section 117(2), Criminal P. C. directs that the enquiry shall, where the order requires security for keeping the peace be made as nearly as may be practicable in the manner prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons case. Section 18(2) of Act 56 of 1951 directs that the enquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable in the manner prescribed for conducting trials in summons cases. The wording of the two sections is similar and there is no reason why the law as laid down in - 'AIR 1927 Cal 343 (B)' should not be made applicable to Act 56 of 1951.
5. The last contention of the learned Counsel is as regards the explanation to Section 3(v) of Act 56 of 1951. In my opinion, the interpretation put on it by me is the only reasonable interpretation that can attach to this explanation. The learned Public Prosecutor has referred me to 'Pritam Singh v. The State' : 1950CriLJ1270 . He has referred to the head-note which reads;
Generally speaking, Supreme Court will not grant special leave to appeal in criminal cases, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.
6. Judged by that standard this petition does not qualify for the certificate. Accordingly, I refuse the certificate and dismiss the application.