1991 PLP 226 (CLC)

(1) Case F.I.R. No.152/74 under section 42 DPR of P.S. Mirpur Mathelo. (2) Case F.I.R. No.104/76 under section 13‑A of P.S Mirpur Mathelo and challaned Special Court, Sindh, Karachi. (3) Conviction and award of 30 lashes in 1976. The appellant submitted before the respondent No.1 that these cases were of political nature and were withdrawn by the Government. The respondent rfo.l however issued the Rubkari on 15‑11‑1989 to the effect that appellant's request for grant of declaration is rejected as he does not enjoy good reputation and stood convicted by 30 lashes. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 26 of the Ordinance. I have heard Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik and Mr. Muhammad Sidiq Kharal the learned Addl. A.‑G., Sindh. Mr. Malik for the appellant has submitted that the case of appellant being one for fresh declaration is governed by the provisions of section 7 of the Ordinance which reads as under:‑‑ "

7. Declaration of the printer and publisher.‑‑The printer and publisher of every newspaper shall appear in person or by agent authorised in this behalf in accordance with the rules before the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such newspaper shall be printed or published, and shall make and subscribe, in duplicate originals, a declaration in Form B' or in such other form as may be prescribed; and the District Magistrate shall, immediately upon the filing of such form, issue a receipt for the same." Mr. Malik has further pointed out that the District Magistrate could refuse the authentication of the declaration only for the reasons as provided in section 12 of the Ordinance. The provisions of section 12 of the Ordinance read as under:‑‑ "

12. Authentication of the declaration.‑‑‑(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), each of the duplicate originals of every declaration made and subscribed under section 7 shall be authenticated by the signature and official seal of the District Magistrate before whom the said declaration is made. (2) The District Magistrate may not authenticate the declaration if he is satisfied that‑‑ (a) the declaration has been filed by a person other than the proprietor of the newspaper or the printing press or a person not authorised by such proprietor; (b) the title of newspaper proposed to be published is the same as the title of any newspaper already being published in the same language at any place in the Province, not being a newspaper of different periodicity published by the same publisher or another edition of the same newspaper published from another place; (c) the printer or the publisher was convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude within five years before the date of his making and subscribing the declaration. (3) the District Magistrate shall not pass an order under subsection (2) without giving to the person making the declaration, through a notice in writing, an opportunity of being heard and rebutting the evidence that may be available against him. (4) In case the District Magistrate fails to authenticate a declaration under subsection (1) or pass an order under subsection (2), within a period of four months, the declaration made by the publisher and the printer shall be deemed to have been authenticated on the expiry of the said period." Clause (c) of subsection (2) above provides that the authentication could be I rejected in case the Printer or Publisher was convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude within five years before the date of his making and subscribing the declaration. In the instant case the appellant is said to have been only involved in 2 cases in the years 1974 and 1976 but it has not been shown if he was convicted in the said cases. However it has been shown that he was awarded a sentence of 30 lashes in the year 1976 which is 13 years before his making the above‑said declaration. Now as provided in section 12 (2) (c) of the Ordinance the District Magistrate could refuse the authentication of the declaration only if 2 conditions are satisfied i.e. Firstly, the declarant should have been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude and Secondly that such conviction should have been within 5 years preceding the date of his making and subscribing the declaration. Both these conditions are not fulfilled in the present case. The learned Additional A: G. Sindh in view of these facts has not been able to controvert the above legal position. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is allowed and the impugned order issued by the respondent No.1 in the form of Rubkari is set aside. The case is referred to the respondent No.1 with the direction for the compliance of the provisions of section 12 (i) of the Ordinance. The appellant has not shown if any damages have been suffered by him and as such no order to this effect is passed. A.A./A‑920/K Case remanded.