P (PLP)

Kh. Feroze-ud-Din Ahmad for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Sharif, A. A. G. for Crown. M. R. KAYANI, J.--The petitioners, Najam-ul-Hussain and Said-ul-Rahman, state in their petition that the Regent Cinema in Lahore had been allotted to them jointly, that they had entered into a contract with the respondent Ghulam Bari, a film distributor, for the exhibition of certain films including one entitled " Ziddi ", that exhibition was to be extended to the second and subsequent weeks, if the gross receipts did not fall below Rs. 3,500, and that since during the week ending the 7th July 1949 the receipts had fallen below the prescribed limit, the petitioners had asked the, respondent in terms of their contract to supply them with another picture. On the failure of the respondent to supply the picture the petitioners had entered into a contract with another film distributor and were exhibiting the film "Umang" when on the 7th July 1949 the respondent accompanied by Mr. A. M. Saeed, a first class Magistrate, Sub-Inspector Muhammad Shafi and a posse of police came to the office of the petitioners in the Regent Cinema and told the petitioners that as there was danger of a breach of the peace between the parties the Magistrate in question intended attaching the Cinema building. Notwithstanding the petitioners the Magistrate made it clear that unless the petitioners re-exhibited the film " Ziddi ", the Cinema would be sealed. The petitioners, therefore, agreed under pressure but as the order of the learned Magistrate was illegal the High Court was moved for its being set aside so that the petitioners may exhibit the new picture. The petition was made on the 19th July 1949 and two days later notices were issued by this Court to the Crown and the res pondent Ghulam Bari. Mr. A. M. Saeed, the Magistrate, was also asked to make a report. His report is dated the 25th July 1949, but as the respondent succeeded from time to time in evading service which has at long last been effected on him now the petition could not be heard until today and even today the respondent is absent. The learned Magistrate has reported that on the 17th July 1949, the police having apprised him of the imminence of a breach of the peace at Regent Cinema, he went to the spot accompanied by the Sub-Inspector and found the situation grave, that is to say, " the advertisement-boards had been removed, the paintings outside the Cinema Hall were not there". He, therefore, wrote an order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He can celled the order for sealing the Cinema when the parties" compromised among themselves and stated that they would not resort to violence ". They agreed that the same picture, namely, '` Ziddi ", should be exhibited. At the same time, since the police had made an application under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Magistrate considered a breach of the peace probable he issued notices to both parties. The result is that the proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are still pending while those under section 145 of the Code have been cancelled. The file shows that while on the one hand the statements of the parties agreeing to exhibit the film " Ziddi " were recorded, the Sub-Inspector, on the other hand, prepared a case under section l0i / 151 of the Code. The learned Assistant Advocate-General agreed that he could not support either the order of the Magistrate or the proceedings taken by the Sub-Inspector, and I wish to add that both the proceedings and the order have a repugnant flavour about them, being essentially one sided. An order under section 145 of the Code can be passed only where the dispute concerns any land or water or the boundaries thereof and although the expression " land or water" includes buildings, it .is obvious that the dispute was not concerning the building of the Regent Cinema but concerning the film that was to be exhibited in it. The petitioners were exhibiting the film " Umang " while the respondent wanted them to exhibit " Ziddi ". The petitioners were in possession of the Cinema and could exhibit anti fim subject to such risks as they might incur in the breach of a contract with the respondent. Assuming that there was any breach of contract, it was not the duty either of the learned Magistrate or of the Sub-Inspector to enforce that contract for the respondent. On the other hand, if they believed that the respondent was likely to cause a breach of the peace because the petitioners wanted to exhibit the film "Umang", their obvious duty, would have been to take proceedings under section 107 read with section 1.51 of the Code against the respondent alone in order to guard the petitioners in the enjoyment of their civil right. Further, while it is hard enough to assume that the removal by the Petitioner of the advertisement boards and the paintings " l"oh apparently related to the picture " Ziddi " constituted a grave situation, it is harder still to understand why any proceedings were necessary after the parties had agreed the exhibition of the film " Ziddi " and had thus removed the reason which was likely to cause the breach. If the Sub-Inspector really believed that action was necessary under section 151, he would have arrested the parties. The fact that he did not arrest them shows that he did not believe that any danger existed, at least at the time when the parties had come to an agreement. The proceedings in the Court of the learned Magistrate are quashed and it is hoped that the salutary provisions of the Code will not be abused in future. For this purpose a copy of this order will be sent to the Distract Magistrate and another copy to the Superintendent of Police. A. H. Petition accepted.