Prof. James W. Laine was pained by the unforeseen incident.
In all, 803 companyies of the book were published, i.e., 488 companyies in June and 315 companyies in October 2003.
During the pendency of the writ petitions, interim order of stay of further proceedings in FIR No.
In response to the said letter, the Manager, Oxford University Press, Pune vide letter dated 14.01.2004 Annexure P 6 had sent one companyy of the book to the Senior Police Inspector, Deccan Police Station, Pune.
It was also suggested that if the affidavit was obtained, it would be without prejudice to the rights of the author, printer and publisher and the affidavit would be used only to enable the State to close the matter and put an end to the entire companytroversy.
It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship and education, by publishing worldwide in Oxford, New York, Auckland, Bangkok, Buenos Aires, Cape Town, Chennai, Dar es Salaam, Delhi, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Karachi, Kolkata, Kuala Lumpur, Madrid, Melbourne, Mexico City, Mumbai, Nairobi, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, etc.
Manzar Sayeed Khan, appellant herein, is a companystituted Attorney of the Oxford University Press India, having been appointed on 21.06.2001 for a period of three years or for so long as he is employed as the Managing Director of the Oxford University Press India, which is a department of the University of Oxford, a legal entity with charitable status.
Prof. James W. Laine had given an interview to the Mid Day Newspaper on 07.01.2004 and had explained the reason for writing the book and expressed deep anguish at the destruction of books and rare manuscripts in BORI, Pune.
The affidavit dated 16.04.2004 filed by Prof. James W. Laine, the author of the book, was taken on record on 27.04.2004 and the affidavit dated 20.04.2004 filed by the appellant publisher of the book, was also taken on record on 27.04.2004.
As per the terms of the agreement, the Oxford University Press, India agreed to reprint the book without any changes or deletions.
The High Court issued a numberice to the State of Maharashtra on 14.02.2004 and the matter was adjourned to 23.02.2004 directing the State number to arrest the appellant Manzar Sayeed Khan.
280 of 2004 and 370 of 2004 in the High Court of Judicature, at Bombay, praying inter alia for quashing the investigation in FIR No.
This incident was also widely reported in the press.
It appears from the record that the writ petitions were heard on 15.04.2004 and 16.04.2004 when it was felt by the learned Judges that it would be better to settle the companytroversy finally at that stage expeditiously and in the interest of the State to put the matter to an end instead of allowing the companytroversies to precipitate and, therefore, the publishers companynsel was requested to try and establish companytact with the author and obtain his companysent whether he was willing to withdraw the allegedly objectionable portion from the book published all over the world and he should submit an affidavit as per the suggestions orally observed in the companyrt room.
The companynsel for the State appeared, but he expressed his inability to give any definite reply and made a statement in the Court that there was a very positive response to the affidavit filed by the author and since the decision had to be taken at the highest level and as the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister both were busy with the General Assembly Elections in the State of Maharashtra, he would require few more days time before making any statement.
On 23.02.2004, numberreply was filed by the State and after hearing the learned companynsel for the parties, a Division Bench of the High Court was pleased to issue rule returnable within 4 weeks and stayed all the proceedings in FIR No.
The said book was originally published by the Oxford University Press Inc., USA.
In the said affidavit, it was stated that one passage of the book had hurt the sentiments of the people of all sections of the society and that it would number be in the larger public interest to drop the charges.
The companyies of the letters dated 10.11.2003 and 21.11.2003 are annexed with the appeals and marked as Annexure P 3 Colly.
On 30.04.2004, the companynsel for the State of Maharashtra filed an affidavit of the Principal Secretary Special , Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, submitting that the State would want to investigate whether there was an organised attempt to destroy the social tranquility or was it a freak occurrence.
The Criminal Writ Petitions filed by the appellants were kept pending.
10 of 2004 was granted.
The signed affidavit of the author was handed over to the learned companynsel representing the State in advance before the next date of hearing of the writ petitions on 27.04.2004.
On 05.01.2004, a mob of 100 to 125 persons allegedly belonging to the Shambhaji Brigade ransacked the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute BORI , Pune, and destroyed 18,000 books and 30,000 rare manuscripts.
He was granted 6 days transit remand by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.
On the request of the learned companynsel for the State, the matter was adjourned to 30.04.2004.
35, Shahdara, Delhi number Karkardoma Court .
The matter was adjourned to 27.04.2004 to give sufficient time to the author to file the original affidavit.
The Oxford University Press, India and the appellants had received a letter on 10.11.2003 from four Historians whereby the publisher and the author had been asked to retract the objectionable statement companyplained of and tender an apology.
This incident was widely reported in the press.
2512 OF 2004 Vinod Hansraj Goyal Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Leave granted.
When the appellant Manzar Sayeed Khan came to know about the arrest of Vinod Hansraj Goyal, he filed an application for grant of an anticipatory bail in the High Court of Judicature, at Bombay.
On 05.05.2004, the companynsel for the appellant submitted written submissions that numberoffence under Section 153 and 153A was made out against the appellants.
When the matters came up for hearing before the High Court, the attested and authenticated companyies of the affidavit were presented before the learned Judges without prejudice to the defence of the parties.
10 of 2004 lodged at the Deccan Police Station, Pune, and summoning of the records and proceedings before the Court of Magistrate and quashing the same.
The Oxford University Press, India through appellant Manzar Sayeed Khan, expressed regrets for the said statement and informed the objectors that instructions had been issued to all its offices in India to immediately withdraw all companyies of the book from circulation.
496 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
By the impugned order, the High Court vacated the interim order granted on 23.02.2004 and directed the Crime Branch of the State of Maharashtra to companyplete the investigation in FIR No.10 of 2004 registered at the Deccan Police Station, Pune, against the appellants and author of the book titled Shivaji Hindu King in Islamic India under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC.
The High Court on 06.05.2004 recorded an order that the undertakings given by Prof. James W. Laine as well as by the appellants were accepted by the Court, but the interim stay order granted on 23.02.2004, whereby further proceedings in the FIR were stayed, was vacated holding that the investigation was number companyplete and the Court has to see all the statements recorded after full investigation.
491 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
The arguments companyld number be companycluded on 30.04.2004 and the petitions were adjourned to 05.05.2004.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Now, the order dated 06.05.2004 is impugned before us by the appellants.
Since the State had expressed its inability to accept the suggestions of the Court and the companypromise formula, the matter was heard on merits.
Four days after the alleged incident, the State of Maharashtra, respondent herein, registered a First Information Report No.
Thereafter, the Maratha Vikas Sangh filed a Public Interest Litigation PIL in the Bombay High Court demanding action to be taken for extradition of Prof. James W. Laine and some companyrcive action against the publisher etc.,
The appellants stated that a draft affidavit was placed before the learned Judges of the High Court in the presence of all the learned companynsel representing the parties, wherein certain companyrections were made in hand and the learned companynsel were directed to incorporate the companyrections and submit the affidavit to the companynsel of the State to enable him to obtain instructions from the Government and in the meantime, the publisher would get the original affidavit signed and attested from USA, where the author was residing.
Both the appellants filed separate Criminal Writ Petition Nos.
The brief facts in both these appeals are practically identical.
The Oxford University Press India entered into an agreement for five years with the Oxford University Press, USA, for publishing in India a paper bound book entitled Shivaji Hindu King in Islamic India authored by Prof. James W. Laine, a Professor of Religious Studies, Macalester College, USA, on 28.05.2003.
Manzar Sayeed Khan and Vinod Hansraj Goyal have filed these two appeals against the companymon order dated 06.05.2004 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.280 of 2004 and 370 of 2004.
2373 OF 2004 W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The matter was listed on 23.03.2004 and on that date, the State of Maharashtra had filed an affidavit in reply.
to the Manager, Oxford University Press, Vijaynagar, Pune with a companyy endorsed to Managing Director, Oxford University Press, New Delhi asking for a companyy of the book since numbercopy of the book was available in the market.
The writ petitions were taken up for arguments on 07.04.2004 and 08.04.2004 and later on adjourned to 14.04.2004.
10 of 2004 at the Deccan Police Station, Pune, on 09.01.2004 against the author Prof. James W. Laine and the appellants herein the publisher and the printer of the book, under sections 153, 153A and 34 of the IPC.
215 companyies had been sold in July, 25 companyies in August, 29 companyies in September, 52 companyies in October and 19 companyies in November from the records available from the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka.
During the companyrse of the investigation of the case, a Senior Police Inspector, Deccan Police Station, Pune, sent a companymunication dated 12.01.2004 Annexure P 6 Colly.
10/2004 till then.
The book was released in July 2003.
On 03.02.2004, the High Court granted 2 weeks time to the appellant to approach the companycerned companyrt for appropriate relief.
A team of Policemen had arrested Vinod Hansraj Goyal, appellant, a partner of the Rashtriya Printing Press, Shahdara, Delhi, for having printed the book.
of the book.
