# • > JOSHI GIRJADHARJI AND ANOTHER v. LACHMANJI PANTH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1952] 1 S.C.R. 645
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1952-04-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1951
- **Bench:** PATANJALI SASTRI c. J, Saiyid Fazl Ali, MuKHERJEA, DAs
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/joshi-girjadharji-and-another-v-lachmanji-panth-and-others-55
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

U. P. Debt Redemption
Act (XIII of 1940), ss. 2 (9), 21-
"Loan". "Suit to which Act applies", meanings of-Decree on
mortgage--Person who is not agriculturist when advance is madeW hether eatitled t-0 relief.
A mortgage was executed by several persons on the 28th
July, 1931. The term of the mortgage, namely six years, expired
in July 1937, the mortgagees instituted a suit in May 1938 and
a decree was passed in March 1939.
An application for relief
under the U. P. Debt Redemption Act (XIII of 1940) was made
on 11th April, 1942, and this application was resisted on
the
ground that S, one of the mortgagors, had been
assessed
to
income-tax and was therefore not an agriculturist, and the suit
was not consequently "a suit to which the Act applied." The
evidenoe
showed that S was earning a month! y salary of Rs.
90
and that from February 1932 he had been assessed to income-tax
till the year 1936.
The High Court held, relying on the Full
Bench ruling in Ketki Kunwar v. Ram Saroop (I.L.R. 1943 All.
35), that under sec. 21 of the Act the mortgage money could be
recovered only from the mortgaged property and not personally
and that the proviso
to sec. 2 (9) of
the Act. had therefore
no application and the question whether S was an agriculturist
on the date of the mortgage was immaterial. As S was admittedly an agriculturist on the date of the suit, the High Court held
that the judgment debtors
were entitled to relief under the Act"
On appeal
Held, that, assuming that the proviso to sec. 2 (9) applied
and that in order to be a "loan" within the meaning of the Act
it must be shown that the advance was made to one who at
the date of the advance was an agriculturist, S was not an agriculturist on the 28th July, 1931, as the Indian
Finance (Supplementary and Extending)
Act of 1931 which reduced the taxable
minimum
from
Rs.
2,000 to Rs.
1,000 was
passed
only in
November
1931 · and
income-tax was
first
deducted from
his
salary only in February, 1932.
Quaere : Whether the Full Bench decision in Ketki Kunwar
v. Ram Saroop (I.L.R. 1943 All. 35) is correct.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Civil
Appeal
No. 64 of 1951. On Appeal from the Judgment and
5-7 SCI/71
195Z
April 25
1952
/oshi Girjadharji
and Another
v.
l..achmanji Panth
and Others.
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
Decree dated the 16th April, 1948, of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad (Malik C. J.
and
Prasad J.)
in First Appeal No. 358 of 1943 arising out of the
Judgment and Decree dated the 22nd February, 1943,
of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Benares,
in Original Suit No. 33 of 193.8.
Gopi Nath Kunzru (K. B. Asthana, with him) for
the appellants.
Krishna Shankar for the respondents.'
1952. April 25.
delivered by
The judgment of the Court was
DAs J.-This appeal
arises
out of
an application
by five out of ten judgment-debtors made under
section 8 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act (No. XIII
of 1940) for ascertaining the amount due by them
in
accordance with the provisioqs of sections 9 and 10
of that Act and for amerid!rig the decree passed on
March 31, J939, by the' 'Additional
Civil
Judge,
Banaras, in O.S. No. 33 of 1938. The facts material
for the purposes of this ap.P.eal may now be briefly
stated.
By a mortgage deed
e11~Gute9, . Qn. Ju.ne
22,
1922,
Madho Ram Sita Ram, Jai Ram and Lakshman, all
sons of Pandit Raja Ram Pant Sess, mortgaged certain immovable properties in favour
of
Damodarji,
son of Kamta Nathji, owner of
the Kothi Joshi
Shivanath Vishwanath for the due repayment of the
sum of Rs. 8,000 advanced on that date by a cheque
together with interest thereon at 12 annas per cent. per
mensem with quarterly rests.
On July 28, 1931,
the
'y
said mortgagors and their sons executed a mortgage
over the same properties irt favour of Kothi Kamta
Nathji Vishwanathji for
the
due
repayment
of
Rs. 3,000 with interest thereon at ·twelve annas · per
cent. per mensem with quarterly rests.
It is recited
in the deed that the sum of Rs. 8,000 was advanced
,
on this date by a cheque

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
645
• >
JOSHI GIRJADHARJI AND ANOTHER
-,
v.
LACHMANJI PANTH AND OTHERS.
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., SAIYID FAZL ALI,
MuKHERJEA and DAs JJ.]
U. P. Debt Redemption
Act (XIII of 1940), ss. 2 (9), 21-
"Loan". "Suit to which Act applies", meanings of-Decree on
mortgage--Person who is not agriculturist when advance is madeW hether eatitled t-0 relief.
A mortgage was executed by several persons on the 28th
July, 1931. The term of the mortgage, namely six years, expired
in July 1937, the mortgagees instituted a suit in May 1938 and
a decree was passed in March 1939.
An application for relief
under the U. P. Debt Redemption Act (XIII of 1940) was made
on 11th April, 1942, and this application was resisted on
the
ground that S, one of the mortgagors, had been
assessed
to
income-tax and was therefore not an agriculturist, and the suit
was not consequently "a suit to which the Act applied." The
evidenoe
showed that S was earning a month! y salary of Rs.
90
and that from February 1932 he had been assessed to income-tax
till the year 1936.
The High Court held, relying on the Full
Bench ruling in Ketki Kunwar v. Ram Saroop (I.L.R. 1943 All.
35), that under sec. 21 of the Act the mortgage money could be
recovered only from the mortgaged property and not personally
and that the proviso
to sec. 2 (9) of
the Act. had therefore
no application and the question whether S was an agriculturist
on the date of the mortgage was immaterial. As S was admittedly an agriculturist on the date of the suit, the High Court held
that the judgment debtors
were entitled to relief under the Act"
On appeal
Held, that, assuming that the proviso to sec. 2 (9) applied
and that in order to be a "loan" within the meaning of the Act
it must be shown that the advance was made to one who at
the date of the advance was an agriculturist, S was not an agriculturist on the 28th July, 1931, as the Indian
Finance (Supplementary and Extending)
Act of 1931 which reduced the taxable
minimum
from
Rs.
2,000 to Rs.
1,000 was
passed
only in
November
1931 · and
income-tax was
first
deducted from
his
salary only in February, 1932.
Quaere : Whether the Full Bench decision in Ketki Kunwar
v. Ram Saroop (I.L.R. 1943 All. 35) is correct.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Civil
Appeal
No. 64 of 1951. On Appeal from the Judgment and
5-7 SCI/71
195Z
April 25
1952
/oshi Girjadharji
and Another
v.
l..achmanji Panth
and Others.
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
Decree dated the 16th April, 1948, of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad (Malik C. J.
and
Prasad J.)
in First Appeal No. 358 of 1943 arising out of the
Judgment and Decree dated the 22nd February, 1943,
of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Benares,
in Original Suit No. 33 of 193.8.
Gopi Nath Kunzru (K. B. Asthana, with him) for
the appellants.
Krishna Shankar for the respondents.'
1952. April 25.
delivered by
The judgment of the Court was
DAs J.-This appeal
arises
out of
an application
by five out of ten judgment-debtors made under
section 8 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act (No. XIII
of 1940) for ascertaining the amount due by them
in
accordance with the provisioqs of sections 9 and 10
of that Act and for amerid!rig the decree passed on
March 31, J939, by the' 'Additional
Civil
Judge,
Banaras, in O.S. No. 33 of 1938. The facts material
for the purposes of this ap.P.eal may now be briefly
stated.
By a mortgage deed
e11~Gute9, . Qn. Ju.ne
22,
1922,
Madho Ram Sita Ram, Jai Ram and Lakshman, all
sons of Pandit Raja Ram Pant Sess, mortgaged certain immovable properties in favour
of
Damodarji,
son of Kamta Nathji, owner of
the Kothi Joshi
Shivanath Vishwanath for the due repayment of the
sum of Rs. 8,000 advanced on that date by a cheque
together with interest thereon at 12 annas per cent. per
mensem with quarterly rests.
On July 28, 1931,
the
'y
said mortgagors and their sons executed a mortgage
over the same properties irt favour of Kothi Kamta
Nathji Vishwanathji for
the
due
repayment
of
Rs. 3,000 with interest thereon at ·twelve annas · per
cent. per mensem with quarterly rests.
It is recited
in the deed that the sum of Rs. 8,000 was advanced
,
on this date by a cheque anc;l that the
amount was
·r ··
utilised in paying up the amount due under the earlier
y
'
-
S.G.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
647
mortgage
deed
to Damodarji proprietor of
Kathi
Shivanath Vishwanath.
In 1935
the
U. P.
Agriculturists' Relief
Act
(No. XXVII of 1934) came into force. On May 19,
1938, Girjadharji, son of Damodarji, and Murlidharji,
minor son of Gangadharji who was another
son
of
Damodarji, filed suit No. 33 of 1938 in the Court of
the Additional
Civil Judge Benaras,
against
the
mortgagors
and
their
sons
for
the recovery
of
Rs. 9,477-2-0 due as principal and interest up to date
of suit and for further interest under the mortgage
deed of July 28, 1931.
It appears from the judgment
of the High Court under appeal that in their written
statement the mortgagors claimed the benefit of
the
U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (No. XXVII of 1934).
The plaintiffs contended that the mortgagors
were
members; of a joint Hindu family and as Sita Ram one
of the mortgagors was assessed
to income-tax the
mortgagors were not
agriculturists as
defined in section 2(2) of that Act and, therefore, could not claim
the benefit conferred on the agriculturists by that Act.
The trial Court, by its judgment dated March 31, 1939,
. hel(l that though Sita Ram was assessed
to
incomer;{!>;. for . the year 1931-32, the amount of such incometax did not exceed the amount of cess payable on
the
land held by him and consequently the second proviso to section 2 (2) did not apply to him and he was,
therefore, an agriculturist and as the other mortgagors
. '"'.ere ·also agriculturists all of them were entitled to the
~benefits under the Act. Accordingly,
after
scaling
. down the interest, a sum
of
Rs. 9,497-14-1
was
declared to be due for principal, interest and costs up
to March 31, 1939, and a preliminary mortgage decree
for sale was passed in that suit .
. I11 'I940 the U.P. Debt Redemption Act
(No. XIII
o1 1940) came into force.
On April 11, 1942, five of
the
judgment -debtors
made an
application under
section 8 of this Act before the Additional Civil Judge,
Banaras,
who passed the decree. In the petition it
was stated that the debt was actually advanced
in
1922, that the petitioners were agriculturists within
1952
/oshi Girjadharii
and Another
v.
Lachmanji Panth
and Others.
Das/.
1952
/oshi Giriadharii
and Another
v.
Lachman;i Panth
and Others.
Das/.
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
the meaning of Act XIII of 1940, that the
decreeholders can only get interest at the reduced
rate
of
Rs. 4-8-0 per cent. per annum from 1922, and that
after adjustment of accounts nothing will be found
outstanding against the petitioners. The prayer was
that an account of the money-lending business be
made from the beginning of 1922 and the decree in
suit No. 33
of 1938 be modified by reducing the
amount due thereunder.
The decree-holders
filed
a
petition of
objection
asserting,
inter alia,
that the
petitioners were by no means agriculturists, that they
and the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were members of a
joint Hindu family at the time of the execution of the
mortgage deed of July 28, 1931, that Sita Ram used
to pay income-tax at the date of the mortgage in
suit and paid even at the time
of the application,
that
all
the
members
of
the
petitioners'
family
were not agriculturists within the meaning of the Act
and were, therefore, not entitled to the benefits thereof, that the debt advanced under the mortgage deed
of July 28, 1931, was not a "loan" as defined in the
Act and, therefore, the Act did not apply. It will be
noticed that although
the
judgment-debtors-applicants
specifically prayed for the accounts being taken from
1922, when the loan was said to have been actually
advanced,
the
decree-holders, in their
petition of
objection, did not contest that position.
At
the
hearing
of
the
application
before
the
Additional Civil Judge,
the
learned
pleader
for the
decree-holders
admitted that with the
exception of
Sita
Ram
the
remammg
judgment-debtors
were
agriculturists under Act No. XIII of 1940 but that as
Sita Ram was a party to the mortgage in suit they
were not entitled to the benefit of the
Act.
Two
witnesses, namely Suraj Mani Tripathi and Sita Ram,
were examined
on ' behalf of the judgment-debtors
applicants. Sita Ram stated that since 1907 he had
been a teacher
in
Harish
Chandra
Intermediate
College of Banaras, that in 1930 his salary was Rs. 90
per month, that since February 1932 to 1936 he
paid
income-tax and that after that he paid no income-tax.
•
-.,-··
' ,
- '
...
-~
,
)-
• '
....
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.._
649
His evidence was corroborated by Suraj Mani Tripathi
who was the Accountant of the College from 1930 to
1942.
Referring to the College Acquittance Roll Suraj
Mani Tripathi deposed that the pay of Sita Ram was
Rs. 90 per month throughout 1930, that in 1930 no
income-tax was levied, that in 1931 also his salary
was Rs. 90 per month and that no income-tax was
deducted in 1931
too, that the first deduction of
income-tax from his salary
was
made in February
1932.
No
rebutting evidence was adduced by the
decree-holders on the hearing of the application under
section 8 of the Act of 1940.
The income-tax assessment form filed during the trial of the mortgage suit
and marked
as exhibits is
dated
February 9, 1933,
and shows that on that date Sita Ram was assessed at
Rs.
1-14-0 as income-tax on Rs. 180 for the year
1931-32.
By his judgment delivered on February
22, 1943,
the Additional Civil Judge found that Sita Ram
was
not assessed to income-tax either at the date of the
application under section 8 or at the date of the mortgage of 1931 and, therefore held that the
applicants
were agriculturists and that the case related to a loan
as defined in Act XIII of 1940. He then went on to
discuss the question whether the account should be
reopened from June 2, 1922, when the earlier mortgage
was executed or from July 28, 1931, when the mortgage
in suit was executed. The decree-holders who did not
adduce: any evidence on the hearing of the application
evidently relied on the ,evidence adduced in suit No. 33
of 1938.
After discussing that evidence the
learned
Judge came to the conclusion that so far as the judgment-debtors were concerned the mortgagees in the
two mortgages were one and the same.
He adversely
commented
on the non-production of
the books of
account
by
the
decree-holders.
Re-opening
the
accounts from Jl!ne 2, 1922, the learned Judge concluded that the whole of the principal and
interest
payable according to the Act had been fully discharged
and that nothing remained due by the judgmentdebtors under the decree in suit No. 33 of 1938.
He
•
1952
foshi Girjadharji
and Another
v.
Lachmanji Pantli
and Others.
Das f.
1952
/oshi Giriadharji
and Another
v.
Lachmanii Panth
and Others.
Das/.
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952}
accordingly declared that the decree stood
discharged
in full and directed a note to that effect to be made in
the Register of Suits.
The decree-holders having appealed to the High
Court, a Division Bench (B. Mallik, C. J. and Bind
Basni Prasad J.) by its judgment delivered on April 16,
1948, held that the question whether Sita Ram was or
was not an agriculturist on July 28, 1931, was not
material as it was not denied that all the judgment,
debtors were agriculturists on the
date
of
suit.
Reference was made by the learned Judges to section 21
and it was stated that by reason of that section the
mortgage amount could be recovered only from the
mortgaged
property and not personally from
the
mortgagors and accordingly the proviso to the definition of "loan" in section 2 (9) of the Act had
no
application and it was, therefore, not necessary to
show that the borrowers were agriculturists at the
date when the advance was made and that as the
judgment-debtors were
admittedly
agriculturists
at
the date of the suit, the case was fullv covered bv the
Full
Bench
decision
of
that
High Court in Ketki
Kunwar v. Ram Saroop('). The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal on this point alone. The
question whether the account should
be reopened
from
1922 or from
1931
was not raised by
the
decree-holders at all. The decree-holders have now
come up on appeal before
·us
on
a
certificate
granted by the High Court under section 110 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
'
Sri G. N. Kunzru appearing in support of this
appeal has strongly questioned the correctness of the
(Full Bench decision relied on by the High Court and
the interpretation put by the High Court on section 21 and section: 2(9) of the Act. As we think this
appeal can be decided on a simpler ground· we do not
consider it necessary, on this occasion, to
express
any opinion on either of these questions which are by
no means free from doubt.
( 1 ) I.L.R. (1943] All. 35; A.LR. 1942 All. 390; (1942) A.L.J. 578.
•
--
'
)
- '
...
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
651
1952
The present application ha.<! been made under section 8 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, subJoshi Giriadhar;i
section (1) of which, omitting the proviso, runs as
and Another
follows:-
v.
"Notwithstanding
the prov1sions
of any
decree
or of any law for the time being in force, an agriculturist or a workman liable to pay nhe amount due under
a decree to which thi~ Act applies passed
before
the
commencement of this Act, may apply to the Civil
Court which passed the decree or to which the execution of .the decree has been transferred, for the amendment of the decree by reductron according to the
provisions of this Act of the amount due under it,
and on receipt of such application the
Court
shall,
after notice to the opposite party, calculate the amount
due from the applicant in accordance with the provisi1ons of sections 9 and 10 and shall amend the decree
accordingly."
It is clear from the wording of the sub-section that
there are three pre-requisites for exercise of the right
conferred by it, namely, (1) that the application must
be by an agriculturist and (2) that
that
agri'culturist
must be liable to pay the amount due under a decree
to which this Act applies and (3) that that decree was
passed before the commencement of this
Act.
That
the
judgment-debtors
applicants
were
agriculturists
at the date when suit No. 33 of 1938 was filed and
also in 1942 when the application under section 8 was
made is conceded by Sri G. N. Kunzru.
The decree
in that suit was passed on March 31, 1939, which was
well before the commencement of the Act. The only
question that remains is whether the amount was due
under a decree to which the Act applies. Under
section 2(6) of the Act the phrase "decree to which
this
Act applies" means a decree passed before or
after the commencement of this Act in a suit to which
this Act applies. Section 2(17) defines the
phrase
"suit to which this Act applies"
as meaning any
suit or . proceeding relating to a loan. The question
then, . arises : was the decree under which the
judgment-debtors applicants are liable passed in a suit
Lachmanji Pantk
• and Others.
•[ sva
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952)
1952
relating to a loan ? Loan is thus defined in secfoshi Girjadhar;i tion Z(9) :
and Another
"'Loan' means an advance in cash or kind made
v.
before the first day of June, 1940, recoverable
from
Lachmanji Panth
1
k
f
h
and Oth<Ts.
an agricu turist or a wor man or
rom any sue
person and other pesrons jointly or from the property
Das ].
of an agriculturist or workm:fn and includes any
transaction
which in
substance amounts
to such
advance, but does not include an advance the liability
for the repayment of which has, by a contract with
the borrower or his heir or successor or by sale in
execution of a decree been transferred to another
person or an advance by the Central or Provincial
Government to make advances or by a co-operative
society or by a schedule bank :
Provided
that
an
advance
recoverable
from
an
agriculturist or from an agriculturist and other persons
jointly shall not be deemed to be a loan for the purposes of this Act unless such advance was made to an
agriculturist or to an agriculturist and other
persons
jointly."
, , ...
. ... .iii
In order to be a "loan" the advance must
be recoverable from an agriculturist.
The word "recoverable" seems, prima facie, to indicate that the crucial
point of time is when the advance becomes recoverable, i.e., when the amount advanced becomes or falls
due.
Under the mortgage of 1931 the date of redemption was 6 years from the date of execution, i.e., in
July 1937. Sri Kunzru concedes that Sita Ram was
not assessed
to
income-tax
since
1936.
Assuming,
but without deciding, that the proviso to section 2 (9)
applies and that in order· to be a "loan" it must be
shown that the advance was made to one who, at the
date of the advance, was an agriculturist as
defined
in section 2(3) of the Act the question has yet to be
answered, namely, had Sita Ram ceased to be an
agriculturist by reason of clause (b) of the proviso to
section 2(3), . that is to say, by reason of his being
assessed to i.pcome-tax on July 28, 1931.
According
to the evidence of suraj Mani Tripathi and Sita Ram
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
653
income-tax was first deducted at the source in the
month of February 1932 by the College authorities
and the actual assessment was made on February 9,
1933.
Therefore, Sita Ram was not assessed to incometax on July 28, 1931.
It is not disputed that the
taxable minimum was reduced from Rs. 2,000 per
annum to Rs. 1,000 per annum by the Indian Finance
(Supplementary & Extending) Act, 1931, which was
enacted on November 26, 1931.
Therefore, at the date
of the. advance, i.e., on July 28, 1931, Sita Ram whose
,salary was below Rs. 2,000 per annum was not only
not actually assessed to income-tax but was not even
liable to such assessment.
The evidence of Suraj
Mani Tripathi shows that the first deduction of incometax out. of the salary was in the month of February
1932 and the income-tax assessment form for 1931-32
(Ex. S) shows that tax was assessed on Rs. 180 which
was evidently salary
for
February and
March
1932
being the last two months
of the assessment year.
The position, therefore, is that Sita Ram was not
assessed to income-tax at the date of the advance in
1931 or on the due date under the deed, i.e., in July
1937, or on the date of s1Uit in 1938 or on the date
·of the application under section 8 in 1942. It consequently follows that he was an agriculturist on all
these dates.
The other judgment-debtors were admittedly
agriculturist.
Therefore, the application under
section 8 was made by persons who were all agriculturists and who were liable to pay under a decree to
which the Act applies, i.e., under a decree passed in
a suit relating to a loan as defined by
section 2 (9).
The Courts below, therefore, were right in their conclusion
that
the
judgment-debtors
applicar.ts
were
entitled to the benefit of the Act.
Sri G. N. Kunzru finally submitted that in any
·case the accounts could not be taken from
1922, for
the mortgagees under the two mortgages were different. We have already pointed out that this point
was not specifically taken in the decree-holders' petition of objection.
The trial Court held as a fact that
so far as the judgment-debtors were concerned the
1952
foslzi Girjadharii
and Another
v.
Lachman;i Panth
and Others.
Das/.
1952
Joshi Girjadharji
and Another
v.
Lachmanji Panth
and Others.
Das/.
1952
May 26.
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1952]
mortgagees were the same in both the mortgages ..
Although in the petition of appeal to the High Court
it was alleged that the mortgagees were different and
the accounts could not be reopened from
1922,
that
ground was not specifically urged before the High
Court.
The determination of that
question
must
necessarily
involve
an investigation
into facts.
We
do not think, in the absence of a plea in this behalf
in the decree-holders' petition of objection and also in
view of their failure and neglect to raise this
question
before the High Court, it will be right for this final
court of appeal, at this stage and in the circumstances
of this case, to permit the appellants to raise this
question of fact.
The result, therefore, 1s that this appeal must stand
dismissed with costs.
:-
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellants : C. P. Lall.
Agent for the respondents : N atmit Lall.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
v.
SHAILABALA DEVI
[PATANJALI
SASTRI C.J., MEHER
CHAND
MAHAJAN,
MuKHERJEA, DAs and BosE, JJ.]
Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXlll of 1931), s. 4 (I}
(a)-Constitution of India Arts. 19(1)
and
19(2)-Restrictions
imposed by s. 4(l)(a) on freedom of speech and expression-Whether fall within Art. 19 (2)-Validity of s. 4 (!)-Speeches of
political demagogues-Construction-Burden of prosecution .
. Section 4 (!) (a) of the Indian Press
(Emergency Powers)
Act (XXIII of 1931) is not unconstitutional as the restrictions
imposed on freedom of speech and expression by
the
said
sec·
tion are solely directed against the undermining
of
the security
of the State or the overthrow of it and are within the ambit of
Art. 19 (2) of the Constitution.
Romesh Thapar's case
( [1950]