Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.19340 OF 2008  IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 491 OF 2007  

AND CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2009  

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2007

Manzar Sayeed Khan & Anr.            .....       Petitioners

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.                        .....    Respondents

O R D E R

Manzar  Sayeed  Khan,  a  constituted  Attorney  and

Managing Director of the Oxford University Press, India - the

Publisher  of  the Book titled “Shivaji  :  Hindu King  in Islamic

India” and  Vinod  Hansraj  Goyal,  Proprietor  of  Rashtriya

Printing Press, Shahdara, Delhi - the Printer of the said Book,

have  filed  the  above-said  Criminal  Miscellaneous  Petitions

seeking  clarification/modification  of  the  judgment  of  this

Court dated 05.04.2007 reported in (2007) 5 SCC 1, whereby

this Court had disposed of the appeals preferred  against the

order  dated  06.05.2004  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at

Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.280 of 2004 and 370 of

2004.   By  the  impugned  order,  the  High  Court  vacated  its

interim order recorded on 23.02.2004 with a direction to the

Crime  Branch  of  the  State  of  Maharashtra  to  complete  the

investigation in FIR No.10 of 2004 registered at the Deccan

Police  Station,  Pune,  against  the  appellants-applicants  and

Prof. James W. Laine, the author of the book, under Sections

153, 153A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short `IPC’].

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, this

Court in paragraph 21 of the judgment concluded as under:

“21. In the result, for the above-said reasons, the respondents shall not proceed against Professor James  W.  Laine,  the  author  of  the  book,  for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the IPC being the subject matter of F.I.R. No. 10 of 2004  registered  at  the  Deccan  Police  Station, Pune.”   

2

 In paragraph 12 of the judgment, contentions of Mr. Soli

J.  Sorabjee,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of

Manzar  Sayeed  Khan  -  appellant  were  noted  in  detail  and

considered.   Ms. Kamini  Jaiswal,  learned counsel  for Vinod

Hansaj Goyal-appellant, adopted the arguments advanced by

Mr. Sorabjee.    

Having gone through the judgment dated 05.04.2007, we

are of the opinion that manifestly the tenor and import of the

judgment was to grant same and identical relief to Mr. Manzar

Sayeed Khan, Publisher and Mr. Vinod Hansraj Goyal, Printer

of the Book, which was granted to Prof. James W. Laine, the

author of the Book.  But, it appears that by inadvertence or by

mistake, the names of the Publisher and Printer of the Book

had  not  been  recorded  in  paragraph  21  of  the  judgment.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel

it expedient in the interest of justice to the parties to order

necessary  clarification/modification  in  paragraph  21  of  the

judgment, which shall get clarified and read as follow:    

“21.  In  the  result,  for  the  above-said reasons,  the  respondents  shall  not proceed  against  Professor  James  W.

3

Laine,  the  author  of  the  book,  Mr. Manzar  Sayeed  Khan,  Publisher  of  the Book  and  Mr.  Vinod  Hansraj  Goyal, Printer  of  the  Book,  respectively  for offences  under  Sections  153,  153A  and 34 of the IPC being the subject-matter of F.I.R.  No.  10  of  2004  registered  at  the Deccan Police Station, Pune.”

The  Criminal  Miscellaneous  Petitions  filed  by  the

applicants - appellants shall stand disposed of.  

.....................................CJI.                                                 (K. G. Balakrishnan)

........................................J.                                                 (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

........................................J.                                                 (D. K. Jain) New Delhi, April 16, 2009.

4