P L D 1954 Lahore 1 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C. J.‑This order will govern Criminal Originals Nos. 28, 29, (Mumtaz Ahmad Khan v. The Government of the Punjab) 30 (Muhammad Bakhsh v. The Government of the Punjab) and 31 (Malik Nasrullah Khan v. The Government of the Punjab) of 1952 which are petitions under section 23 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act against four different orders of the Punjab Government against the printers and publishers of two newspapers and the keepers of the presses at which they were printed. The "Tarjuman‑ul‑Quran" and the "Kausar" are two organ s' of the Jamait‑i‑Islami of which Maulana Abul‑Ala- Maududi is the founder. Both are published in Urdu from Lahore, the former being a monthly and the latter a bi‑weekly journal. Maulana Abul Khair Maududi is the printer and pub lisher of the Tarjuman‑ul‑Quran which is printed at the Mercantile Press, Lahore, of which Muhammad Bakhsh is the keeper. The order against Maulana Abul Khair Maududi is one of demanding security in the sum of Rs. 3,000 under sub section (3) of section 7 of the Act, while that against Muhammad Bakhsh is that of forfeiture of a security of Rs. 3,000 under clause (i) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act. In the case of Kausar, the order against Malik Nasrullah Khan, the printer and publisher, is that of forfeiting a security of Rs. 3,000 under subsection (1) of section 8, and against Mumtaz Ahmad Khan, the keeper of the Pakistan Printing Press, that of demanding a security of Rs. 3,000 under sub section (3) of section

3. In its issue of September 1952, the Tarjuman‑ul‑Quran published an article under the heading "isharat" containing at page 367 a paragraph commencing with the words "hamara awwaieen etiraz" and ending with "saza di jai". The same passage was published in an article headed as "fikr‑i‑sahih ki rah ke chand kante our pathar our un ka izala" in the issue of "Kausar" dated the 9th October 1952. Action against the printers and publishers o: the two journals and the keepers of the presses at which they were printed was taken by the Punjab Government on the ground that the aforesaid passage contained words which tended to bring into hatred or con tempt, or to excite disaffection, towards the Government established by law in the Province of the Punjab. The func tion of the High Court on a petition under section 23 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act is merely to find whether the publication in respect of which action has been taken by the Government does or does not contain any such words, a signs or visible representations as tend directly or indirectly to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in the Province. The office translation of the words on the basis of which action was taken by the Government is as follows :‑ "Our first objection is against this absolutely unreasonable and absurd recommendation. Our next fundamental objection is against those very sections which still exist in the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes. The question is, if a public officer, in the discharge of official duty. is guilty of an excess for which he has no legal sanction, why cannot criminal proceedings be taken against him without previous reference to the Government and why is it necessary to give sixty days' notice before instituting a civil suit against him ? Why is there no need of such limitations and restrictions for taking criminal proceedings against other public men in respect of similar excesses ? What ostrich feathers do these public officers wear that these limitations and restrictions are needed in their case ? You say that if the public is given unrestricted permission to institute suits and bring criminal cases against the public officers, as suggested, it will become difficult for them to perform their duties. That is only a hypothesis while the actual state of affairs here is that officers have, made life unbearable for the public due to this un justifiable protection. After all, it was the result of this very "protection" that Police Constables fell upon a village in Pakistan like Sikhs and Sewa Sanghis at the instance of a few high officers. They not only laid hands on lives and property but also ravished the women of the entire village and an officer publicly said that the next generation of this village should be the progeny of constables only. In spite of this no steps could be taken against them, simply because the wronged people of the public could not prose cute these officers without the sanction of the Government, and the Government (which came into power through Police) considered the prestige of its Police more valuable than the chastity of the women of its nation. How can any gentleman, after these disgraceful events, have the cheek to say that these public officers need above‑mentioned pro tections for the performance of their duties. Such protection is not required for performance of duty but for perpetrating villainies. For the discharge of duty no more protection is needed than that a punishment be proposed for any one who brings a false complaint against a public officer. At the same time it is necessary that if a public officer is proved to be guilty of abuse of authority, he should be awarded double the punishment as is awarded to similar offenders". This passage was written to reinforce the author's argument that no such protection as is at present provided by section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be recognized in the Constitution. After explaining the reason for which these statutory pro visions were enacted, namely, that an unrestricted permission to institute suits and prosecutions against public servants will make it difficult for them to perform their duties, the author asserts that that reason is no more than a hypothesis whereas the factual position is that because of this unjustified protection Government officers have made life unbearable for the public. He then proceeds to describe an incident which is alleged to have occurred in a village in which, at the instance of a few high officers, the police constables fell upon the villagers like Sikhs and Sewa Sanghis and laid their hands not only on the lives and property of the villagers but also ravished the women of the entire village. The omission of the Government to take any steps against the i offending officers is then commented upon and it is alleged that action was not taken against the police officers concerned because the Government, which had itself been put into power by the police, attached more impor tance to the prestige of the police than the honour of the women of the nation. The short question, therefore, we have to decide is whether the allegation contained in the words "and the Government (which came into power through police) considered the prestige of its police more valuable than the chastity of the women of its nation" have the tendency, direct or indirect, to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection towards the Government of the Province. Read in their context, and assigned their plain and natural meaning, the words convey nothing less than that excesses and atrocities of a very serious nature had been perpetrated by the police on the inhabitants of a village, that these atrocities included base criminal attacks on innocent women and that Government had not taken action against the offending officers or officials because of their being members of a service which had brought the present Government into power and that in the instance in question the Government had preferred the prestige of the police to the honour and chastity of the women of that village. If this be the true import of the words in question, and we have no doubt whatsoever that that is their burden, there can be no two opinions on the question and the words must be held as directly bringing into hatred and contempt, and exciting disaffection against the Government of the Province, thus making the printers and publishers of the two newspapers and the keepers of the presses at which they were printed liable to action under the Press (Emergency Powers) Act. That being so, the action was rightly taken by the Punjab Government against each of the four petitioners. Before we conclude, we must dispose of another argument which was raised by Mr. Mahmud Ali in the case of the Tarju man‑ul‑Quran. It was contended by him that the Tarjuman- ul‑Quran is not a newspaper and that, therefore, action of the kind taken against the printer and publisher of that paper could not have been taken. The definition of "newspaper" both in the Press (Emergency Powers) Act and the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, is the same, namely, "any (printed) periodical work containing public news or comments on public news". It is not disputed that the Tarjuman‑ul‑Quran is a periodical work but it is contended I that it contains no public news or comments on public news. It is conceded that the printer and publisher applied for the registration of this periodical and made a declaration under section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act. It is apparent from this that he treated and could use his periodical as a newspaper. We have got only two issues of the periodical before us namely, that for September 1952, in which the article objected to appears, and that for the preceding month. In both these issues there is a common feature isharat". The isharat in the issue of August referred to reports in the newspapers that the various Committees appointed by the Constituent Assembly had completed their work, that their reports were in final stages of preparation and that a draft Constitution would soon be presented to the Constituent Assembly. The writer then goes on to state his own views on the future Constitution of Pakistan. In the issue for September, the isharat is devoted to a critism of the sug gestions which had been received concerning the proposals published in the issue for August. In the course of that criticism reference is made to the subject of protection of Government servants from prosecution or civil suits and as an illustration of one of the points taken in the issue for August, which had been subjected to some criticism by the correspond ents, the incident which, as will appear from the affidavit filed by Maulana Abul Khair Maudui petitioner, occurred in Chak No. 232 in Police Station Mochiwala in the district of Jhang, mentioned in detail. This incident had occurred in the preceding July and was the subject‑matter of comment in some other papers. In view of its feature, the isharat, we have no hesitation in holding that the journal in question contains public news and inasmuch as it commented on the Mochiwala incident and the expected reports of the various Committees appointed by the Constituent Assembly, it must be held to have contained comments on public news. We, therefore, dismiss all the petitions with costs. K. M. A. Petitions dismissed.