P L D 1966 Supreme Court 772 (PLP)

FAZLE-AKBAR, J.

This appeal by the Province of East Pakistan against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of East Pakistan raises a question as to the legality of imposition of collective fine under section 31 (1) of the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance, 1958 (East Pakistan Ordinance No. LXXVIII of 1958). In exercise of the powers conferred by the said section 31(1) the Governor of East Pakistan imposed collective fine of Rs. 5,000 on the inhabitants of "so much of the area under Police Station Netrakona lying in Monza Satpai, including Muhallas (I) Satpai, (II) Ukilpara (III) Chalkpara, under Ward No. I and Muhalla Teribazar under Ward No. 2 of the Netrakona Town Committee" by the Notification No. 213 Poll. (II), dated 12th October 1962, published in the Dacca Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 13th October 1962. On 8th November 1962, a Magistrate First Class, Netrakona issued a notice on Abu Farid Khan of village Satpai, directing him to pay within 3 days the collective fine of Rs. 51 which had been imposed upon him under the aforesaid Notification. Abu Farid Khan filed a writ petition in the High Court of East Pakistan challenging the legality of imposition of the said fine. Mr. K. M. S. Rahman, Deputy Commissioner, Mymensingh in his affidavit in opposition gave the following reasons for imposition of the collective fine: On the 7th October 1962 the political parties organized a public meeting at Netrakona to protest against the alleged attempt to murder Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy, Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan. Among the people who were coming by train to attend this meeting, 6 students and another person were found to be travelling without tickets. As they were unable to pay the fine imposed by the Magistrate who was holding a Mobile Court in the train, the Police kept them in custody. When the train reached Netrakona Court Railway Station, about 500 persons assembled there and demanded unconditional release of the arrested persons but the Police refused to accede to their demand. When the train reached Netrakona Railway Station, the crowd swelled to 2,000 and there also the demand for the unconditional release of the arrested persons was refused. A large number of them then squatted on the track in front of the engine. They also started pelting stones and brick bats at the train. A section of the mob then rushed into the compartment and forcibly took away the arrested persons and caused injuries to one Sub-Inspector and to some constables. "The Deputy Commissioner has also stated that "in spite of the chaos and confusion which reigned at the place of occurrence and despite of the fact that a large number of persons from among the local public were present there, none came forward to help the police or the Magistrate or to remedy the situation in any manner. Consequently, therefore, those places were suggested for imposition of fine which are contiguous to or in the immediate neighborhood of the place of occurrence or upon the places from where persons were reported by the local police to have been present in the occurrence." It further appears from his statement that `some members of the public have been identified in the test identification parade held in connection with the case started over this occurrence. Now the question is: Whether this case will fall within the ambit of section 31(1) of the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance, 1958. The learned Advocate-General has contended that this section is applicable to the facts of this case. The said section 31(1) is in these terms: "If it appears to the Provincial Government that the inhabitants of any area are concerned in or abetting the commission of offences prejudicially affecting communal harmony, public safety, the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of supplies or services essential to the life of the community, or harbouring persons concerned in the commission of such offence, or are failing to render all the assistance in their power to discover or apprehend the offender or offenders, or are suppressing material evidence of the commission of such offences, it may, by notification, impose a collective fine on the inhabitants of that area." This section empowers the Provincial Government to impose collective fine in order to put a check on certain kind of offences which are being committed and which affect communal harmony, public safety, the maintenance of public order, etc. It visualises a situation when certain offences by reason of the frequency of their perpetration and other attending circumstances may legitimately call for imposition of collective fine by way of deterrent in order to check the further commission of such offences. Are we not familiar with gruesome crimes of murder, arson and loot committed on a large scale in particular localities, and are they not really different from stray murder, arson and loot in another district which may not be affected by any similar upheaval? Similarly political murders or crimes against the State or a class of the community, e.g. children or women, in a particular locality may assume such proportions as to compel the Government to take preventive action under section

31. Again the Government may find that the lawlessness and crime are rampant in a particular area and it is not easy to cope with them under the ordinary law, and in such circum stances the Government may exercise this extraordinary power to bring the law-and-order situation under control. Thus the special features mentioned above add a distinctive quality to these offences or class of offences which distinguish them from stray cases of similar crimes. Furthermore, the very words "offences prejudicially affecting communal harmony, public safety, the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of supplies or services essential to the life of the community, etc." in this section can only have the effect of limiting its application to a particular type of repeated offences arising in particular circum stances and in which people of particular areas are directly or indirectly concerned. In other words it does not apply to any single offence but only to those cases of repeated offences which have a rational relation to or connection with the main object and purpose of this section. In our opinion, the section properly construed and under stood does not, by reason of a single incident, confer power on the Government to impose collective fine in a particular locality. On the contrary the clear recital in the section of the definite and clear objective furnishes a tangible and rational basis for imposition of collective fine, to check criminal courses of conduct by a community. Tested in the light of these considerations it will be difficult to hold that the instant case would fall within the ambit of this section. Here the people were coming to attend a meeting because of their resentment over the arrest of some students for travelling without ticket an incident took place. A case has also been started against some of them in a Criminal Court. By no stretch of imagination a case of this type would fall under section 31 (1) of the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance, 1958. The High Court has, therefore, rightly held that `imposition of collective fine could not have been contemplated in a situations as the present one.' This appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. A. H. Appeal dismissed.