1993 PLP 153 (SCMR)
NASIR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 153 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Actg.CJ., Shafiur Rahman and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | NASIR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 153 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 153 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Actg.CJ., Shafiur Rahman and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 153 (SCMR) (NASIR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mobashir Latif Ahmad, Advocate instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1992.
- Farooq Baidar, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State.
- Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate, instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2 8‑1992 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 2163‑B of 1992.) ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 295‑A, 295‑C & 298‑C‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Ex facie use of expressions in the invitation card prima facie dud not create in a Muslim or for that matter anyone else, any of the feelings of hurt, offence or provocation etc. nor was the same derogatory to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or the Muslims‑‑‑Only when the person reading or hearing them goes deep into the background of the person using them and brings his own special knowledge of the faith, beliefs and latent intentions of such an accused that the alleged results are likely to follow‑‑‑Serious question required examination in depth and the offences under sections 295‑A and 295‑C, P.P.C. being punishable with ten years imprisonment or death, an authroitative pronoucement was called for which was to take place at the trial‑‑‑Petition was converted into appeal in circumstances and interim bail already granted to accused was confirmed. Farooq Baidar, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State. Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate, instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner, accused of the offences under sections 295‑A, 295‑C and 298‑C of the Pakistan Penal Code, seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 2‑8‑1992 whereby bail was refused to him. By an order passed in chambers he was admitted to interim bail pending the hearing of this matter.
3. The occasion for the registration of the case against the petitioner arose on 16‑5‑1992 because on 15‑5‑1992 the marriage of a daughter of the petitioner took place. The gravamen of the charge is that on the invitation card for the occasion he being a Ahmedi or Qadiani by faith, used the following expressions:‑‑ It is alleged that in using these expressions on the invitation card and looking back to his faith, belief and antecedents, he "defiled" the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), to invite the punishment of death and fine under section 295‑C of P.P.C. It is also alleged that he deliberately and maliciously did so with a view to outrage the religious feelings of a particular class of citizens of Pakistan and thereby committed the offence under section 295‑A of the Pakistan Penal Code punishable with ten years' R.I. Finally it is alleged that being a Quadiani or Ahmadi, by using these expressions, he directly or indirectly posed himself to be a Muslim thereby outraging the religious feelings of Muslims and was liable to punishment for a term of three years under section 298‑C of P.P.C.
4. The offence under section 298‑C of P.P.C. being punishable with three years' imprisonment does not for the purposes of bail come within the prohibitory clause. Therefore, this exercise is confined to the offences under sections 295‑A and 295‑C of the Pakistan Penal Code.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that serious question which requires examination is whether "defiling" takes place ex facie by the written or spoken words or the act of the person accused of the offences or that this is to be seen steeping in view the totality of the milieu, including necessarily the faith, the intention, the object, and the background of the person using them. We have got the impression prima facie that ex facie, use of these expressions does not create in a Muslim, or for that matter anyone else, any of the feelings of hurt, offence or provocation etc. etc. nor is it derogatory to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or the Muslims. It is only when the person reading or hearing them goes deep into the background of the person using them and brings his own special knowledge of the faith, beliefs and latent intentions of such an accused that the alleged results are likely to follow.
6. In this context, in view of the serious question requiring examination in depth, and the offences being punishable with ten years' imprisonment or death, an authoritative pronouncement is called for which is to take place at the trial.
7. In the circumstances, petition is converted into appeal and the appeal is accepted. The High Court's impugned order refusing bail is set aside. The interim order of bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed. N.H.Q./N‑318/L Bail confirmed.