1997 PLP 1 (CLC)

6. It may be seen from the passage quoted above that the decision turned principally by reference to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

7. In my view the European Convention on Human Rights, laudable as it be, cannot be imported as a part of the Municipal Law of Pakistan in the absence of any particular Municipal enactment. In the above referred House of Lords case, it was held that the County Council may not sue for libel. The holding was predicated on the assumption that private citizens should be free to fearlessly criticise local authorities and that to permit such an action for libel would place an undesirable fetter on the freedom of speech. On this line of reasoning the suit itself was found to be not, maintainable. With great respect, I am unable to accept this line of reasoning in so far as it relates to the law of Pakistan. This, however, does not mean that there are any undesirable fetters in the law of Pakistan against the freedom of speech. The law of Pakistan recognizes the defence of justification, fair comment on a matter of public interest and the defence of absolute or qualified privilege under certain circumstances. These defences are in fact some of the safeguards on the right of free speech especially in relation to the conduct of public bodies and are available to a qualifying defendant. I am also not unmindful of the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, this Article does not have the effect of wiping off the law .of defamation in this country. In the present case, the defendant by choosing to remain ex parte has not raised any of the defences that may have been available to him. As such, I cannot consider any defence of justification or fair comment on the working of a public institution or of privilege.

8. This brings me to the second question as to whether the complained imputations are libellous of the plaintiff as opposed solely to some of its officers. In this context I may refer to the imputations in question which read as follows:‑‑ "(i) Addressing a news conference on Monday, the Central Chairman APOSTCI, Omer Sailiya, alleged that the Coast Guards Officials headed by Captain Nadim Bhatti, had committed robbery at the residence of a local jeweller Sheikh Amjad Ali on April 17 and took away gold 8000 tolas), ornaments, cash and certificates of Rs.17 million worth. He further alleged that the bandits committed torture on the house inmates by electric shocks and the Toyota Hiace car used in the robbery belonged to the Pakistan Coast Guards." (Daily "The News", Karachi dated 6‑7‑1993) (Daily Jasarat, Karachi dated 6‑7‑1993). (iii) Business Leaders accuse coast guards in robbery case More than 20 representatives of business and industry at a Press Conference on Monday blamed the high‑ups of the Coast Guards and an informer for masterminding the biggest house robbery in the city, in which a jeweller was deprived of gold, cash, foreign currency and saving certificates, worth over Rs.20 million. On April 7, 1993, five armed men came in a Coast Guards vehicle and broke into the P.E.C.H.S. house of Shaikh Amjad Ali, a prominent jeweller of the city." (Daily "Dawn", Karachi dated 6‑7‑1993) "(iv) TOO SERIOUS TO BE IGNORED In what probably is the most serious allegation of its kind ever levelled against a law enforcement agency, the Coast Guards have been accused of masterminding and committing a robbery, said to be the biggest in the country's history. If the allegations made at a Press Conference in Karachi on Monday, by representatives of some sections of the business community, were to be believed, the robbery involved an officer and some personnel of the Coast Guards as well as one of their official vehicles." But the fact that allegations of a very serious nature have been publicly made against the Coast Guards, makes it a serious matter." (Editorial of Daily Dawn, Karachi. dated 8‑7‑1993) (Banner Headline of Daily "Qaumi Akbar", Karachi dated 6‑7‑1993).

9. The imputations show that they affected the reputation of the plaintiff itself as opposed solely to the reputation of its individual officers and can reasonably be understood as referring to the plaintiff organisation itself. The above are few exhibits, which I have reproduced. The plaintiff's witness has produced several other newspaper cutting showing such imputation. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the action for libel is maintainable in the present circumstances of this case and that the defendant having raised no defence at all, the plaintiff has proved its case.. This brings me now to the question of quantum of damages.

10. The plaintiff has not prayed for special or exemplary damages and from the evidence as well it appears that it is claiming only general damages for harm to reputation. I have gone through a number of cases in which general damages have been awarded. See Dr. Q.M. Qarni v. Khalilur Rehman PLD 1975 Ku. 379 (Rs.15,000 awarded as general damages), Muhammad Ansarul Islam Qarni, Advocate v. Karachi Stock Exchange Limited (PLD 1975 Kar. 556) (Rs.28,000 awarded as special and general damages), Abdul Aziz v. Rafique Akhtar (1988 MLD 566) (Rs.40,000 awarded as general damages) and Altaf Gauhar v. Wajid Shamsul Hassan (PLD 1981 Kar. 515) (Rs.25,000 awarded as general damages). In the case of Abdul Aziz this Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs.40,000 against defendant No. l with the interest at the rate of 6% for publication of a news item dated 19‑7‑1973 published in daily Morning News, Karachi, as a result of press conference organised by the defendant No.

1. The rule laid down by this Court in the case of Abdul Aziz (supra) is fully attracted to the facts of the present case.

11. The imputations in the case of Abdul Aziz v. Rafiq Akhtar were made in July, 1973. In the instant case the imputations were made in a press conference in June, 1993. There is a difference of almost 20 years between the publication of the imputations in the case of Abdul Aziz and the existing case. To grant a decrease in real terms of the value of money, a sum of Rs.40,000 in the circumstances of this case here no defence has been pleaded would be a meagre amount. The circulation of the newspapers like Jang and Dawn are commonly known to be the widest in Pakistan. The libel has been reproduced in f at least other four newspapers. There is no defence whether by way of justification, fair comment or privilege. I am, therefore, inclined to award a sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs) by way of general damages with proportionate costs. A.A./P‑19/K Suit decreed.