P L D 1952 Lahore 222 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C. J‑Respondent Faiz Muhammad Faiz Ludhianvi was accused before Mr. M. A. Latif, a first Class Magistrate at Sargodha, of having published three un- authorised news‑sheets and of thus having been guilty of an offence under section 18 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. The allegation against him .was that in the month of March 1950 he published three news‑sheets, Exhibits P/C, P/G and P/H, all directed against Muhammad Sadiq, Headmaster, District Board High School, Bhalwal, without obtaining an order in writing from the District Magistrate, as required by section 15 of the Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent finding that none of the three documents amounted to a news‑sheet. Government has appealed against that order. Muhammad Sadiq took over as Headmaster of the District Board High School, Bhalwal, in May, 1948. The respondent was then employed as a Vernacular teacher in the school. It was discovered that the respondent had been carrying on the business of a bookseller in the name of one of his minor sons and acting as a press correspondent and that he had also published a pamphlet against the local tahsildar and the local police. In consequence of an enquiry held into his activities by the Assistant Commissioner, his dismissal was under consideration when he himself resigned from the school in May 1949. Thereafter the respondent confined himself exclusively to his business of selling books. Two of his sons being students in the school, he approached the headmaster with a request for the remission of their tuition fees and also suggested to him to ask his students to purchase books from the respondent's shop. Before making this request, in June 1949 the respondent had contributed an article to the Ingilab of Lahore, which was published in that paper's issue of 28th May, extolling the activities and services of the headmaster. Since the headmaster did not accede to the request, the respondent took a sudden turn and contributed to the Rahnuma of Rawalpindi a sarcastic article against the headmaster which was published in the issue of 18th January, 1950. The headmaster wrote to the editor of the Rahnuma asking him to stop such publications and also sent for the respondent. It is alleged that in his interview with the headmaster which took place in the presence of Hakim Ali (P. W. 4) and Muhammad Yusaf (P. W. 5), the respondent repeated his demand that the tution fees of his sons be re mitted, and that the headmaster should canvass business for his shop. The respondent also demanded a sum of Rs. 100 and held out the threat that if his demands were not met, he would publish libelous posters and articles against the headmaster. As the headmaster refused to submit to this blackmail, the respondent published and distributed free in one month alone twelve leaflets against the headmaster. These have been ex hibited on the record as P/A to P /L, though only three of them, namely, P/C, dated 4th March 1950, P/G, dated 12th March 1950 and P/H, dated 22nd March 1950, were specifically charged. The respondent admitted the publications but denied that he had ever approached the headmaster with a request for the remission of fees or for canvassing business for his shop or that he had demanded a sum of Rs. 100 from him as hush money. He said that two of his sons being scholars in the school and the affairs of the school having rapidly deteriorated during the regime of the headmaster, he felt it his duty to publish the leaflets with a view to awakening the authorities in charge of the school to the said state of affairs that was prevailing in the institution and their taking necessary steps to put matters right. He also contended that the publications in question were not news‑sheets within the definition of sec tion 2 (6) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act. The learned Magistrate accepted both contentions of the respondent as correct. He held that the publications charged were not news‑sheets and that the allegation of blackmail re mained unproved as the evidence in support of it was unreliable. In appeal the short question that falls for decision is whether the view taken by the learned Magistrate is correct in law and on facts. Subsection (6) of section 2 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act defines a news‑sheet as any document other than a news paper containing public news or comments on public news or any matter described in subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act. Section 15 permits the District Magistrate to authorise, by order in writing and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, any person by name to publish a news‑sheet. Section 18 makes all unauthorised publications of news‑sheets punishable. Since the respondent did not obtain an order from the District Magistrate under section 15, he would be liable to be punished under section 18 if the three publications, which are the subject matter of the charge, are held to fall within the definition of a news‑sheet. And they would amount to news sheets if they are found to contain public news or comments on public news or any matter described in subsection (1) of section

4. Since for reasons presently to be stated we are of the view that two of these publications contain public news and comments on public news, it is not necessary to go into or determine the question whether they also contain any matter described in subsection (1) of section

4. In this view of the matter, we need not record any finding in regard to the truth or otherwise of the evidence of Headmaster Muhammad Sadiq, Hakim Ali and Muhammad Yusaf who all state that the respondent had threatened the headmaster that if he did not concede to the respondent's demands, the respondent would publish defamatory articles against him. Exhibit P/C does not, in our opinion, contain any public news because all that is stated therein is that earlier the respondent had published some articles in the newspapers in respect of the District Board High School, which were read by the headmaster and which had made him absent himself from the school and engage in daur dhup for four days. We do not think this publication contains any public news. The case as regards Exhibit P/G and Exhibit P/H, how ever, stands on a more solid basis. Exhibit P/G is headed in broad headlines as‑ "Lawlessness taught to nation's children. Rowdy procession, antagonistic slogans, attack on shop, and criminal act of throwing stones." "Demonstration of unreasonable ness in response to reason. Higher authorities demanded to make enquiry". In its body the document refers to a meeting of students of the school called by the headmaster on the morning of the 6th March, 1950, which was attended by the Drill Master and the Persian Teacher, and in which inflammatory speeches are alleged to have been made against the respondent. The document then refers to an incident which happened on the same day in the afternoon, namely, a procession of four or five hundred excited students first going to the house of the respon dent and then to his shop, throwing bricks and stones and shouting slogans all along. It also contains comments on the incident inasmuch as it alleges that the school children were' being used as tools by the headmaster who was bringing the management of the school into disrepute and attemp ting to disturb the peace of Bhalwal. It proceeds to suggest that this act on the part of the headmaster which amounted to rowdyism should not be overlooked or tolerated by the authorities and that the headmaster should be replaced by a better man, and contains an appeal to the press that a journal ist (the writer) should not be permitted to meet such fate merely because he brings to public notice the negligent acts and irregularities of a department. Exhibit P/H also refers to a specific incident that happen ed in the garden of the Municipal Committee. That document alleges that some school children entered the Municipal garden which was in the possession of a lessee and set fire to some dry plants, despite the fact that earlier the lessee had requested the headmaster to keep the school children under control and not to let them enter the garden and harass the lessee. It also refers to a complaint which was made by the lessee to the Municipal Committee on which an enquiry was made by the Secretary of the Committee from the headmaster but the latter had given no reply and ends by saying that the headmaster was unfit for the important office he was holding because he was not teaching English to the classes for even a single period and could not even correct exercise‑books because of his palsied hand. The document also criticises the creation of a parcha fund and a union fund by the headmaster. There can, in our opinion, be no doubt that both these documents amount to news‑sheets. "news" is defined in Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary as "something heard of that is new ; recent account ; first information of something that has just happened or of something not formerly known ; intelligence." In the Oxford Dictionary it is defined as "new things; novelties ; tidings; new information of recent events; new occurrences as a subject of report or talk". Thus, the essential element of the definition of news" is novelty or newness of something reported. The mater reported may be a happening, an event or an act and the news will be public news within the meaning of the Act if the public are interested in the matter reported. Thus, any document which purports to give information of a recent happening would be a news‑sheet if the event reported is such that the public are interested in knowing it. It is wholly immaterial what form the document takes. It may be a newspaper, a placard or a handbill. Provided it contains fresh information of general interest, it would be a news‑sheet, though a poster, if it merely amounts to an announcement or an advertisement, may not come within that definition. In Shamsul Huda v. Emperor, A I R 1938 Cal. 222, a leaflet stating: "The invincible desire of the nation for the attainment of independence did not weaken ****. The people, disabled and dying throuh famine, flood and starvation, are again waking up. The invincible desire for the attainment of independence is making the whole country restive, even to‑day thousands of young men and women without trial are passing the moments that are not in their control behind the prison walls." was held to fall within the definition of "news". In that leaflet there was also reference to the events of Spain which were generally known and it was observed that it could not be disputed that the reference to those events amounted to "news". The learned Magistrate has purported to follow the decision in Mrs. Bharucha v. Emperor, A I R 1942 Lah. 203, in which Young, C. J., held a document issued by the Punjab Civil Liberties Union which referred to the detention of 1,000 political prisoners in jail without trial and made certain demands on behalf of the Political Prisoners Relief Sub committee as not amounting to "news". The decision proceed ed on the ground that the information in the handbill could not be called "news" because it had been in possession of the public for some considerable time. The decision on the facts of that case was probably right but we cannot agree to the distinction that the learned Chief justice sought to draw in that case between "new‑sheets" and "handbills" or "posters". As we have said above the essential test in such cases is the contents of the printed document and not the manner in which it is displayed or distributed. If the document contains information of recent events in which the public are interested, it does not matter whether it takes the form of a handbill or placard or is posted or displayed in a public place. In the present case each of the two leaflets referred to an incident relating to a public institution in which the whole town of Bhalwal, m any case most of the population of Bhalwal, was interested. Both the publications, therefore, amounted to news‑sheets inasmuch as they not only contained public news but also comments on public news. The judgment of the learned Magistrate is, therefore, incorrect and must ‑be set aside. We accept the appeal, set aside the acquittal of the respondent and convict him under section 18 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act. As regards the sentence we have decided to take a lenient view of the matter because the present case is the first of its kind. We must, however, remark that we take a grave view of such defamatory leaflets, particularly when they are directed against public servants. Printed matter vilifying a public officer which is broadcast to the public has a most unhealthy effect on the administration. It disturbs peace of mind of the officer concerned and causes irretrievable damage to his reputation, however innocent he may be. It detracts his attention from his normal duties and thus adversely affects his efficiency. He cannot defend himself in the press or indulge in reciprocal recrimination without bringing the office he holds into disrespect. Since the Partition such leaflets have become an incessant epidemic. In fact one of the respondent's defences is that he cannot be singled out for prosecution when a large number of other persons have been doing unchecked precisely what he has done. Needless to say the contention is wholly untenable. The articles in question are in their tenor and effect extremely pernicious, but since they were probably written under a mistaken belief that the writer was entitled to do what he did and the case is the first of its kind after the Partition, we order the respondent to pay on each of the two counts a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week on each count. A. H Respondent sentenced.