Case Details

Citation(s)
1954 SLG 127 1954 SLD 127 1954 PLD 14
Lahore High Court
Criminal Original No. 14 of 1952, decided on 21st January 1953
RAHMAN, MUHAMMAD, JAN AND KAYANI, JJ
Mahmud Ali and Abdul Rashid for Petitioner. Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate-General for
Respondent

MAZHAR ALI KHAN, Printer & Publisher of the Daily "Imroze"

VS

THE GOVERNOR OF THE PUNJAB

Law: Press (Emergency Powers) Act, (XXIII of 1931)

Section: 4,23,4(1)(d)

(a) Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII o f 1931), Ss. 4 & 23-Impugned article to be read as a whole in free and liberal spirit-Passage of writing amounting to no more than criticism of legislative measure for which party in power would naturally be held responsible and on merits of which two opinions are possible-Does not fall under S. 4 (1) (d). (Per S. A. Rahman, J):-It is well settled that in such cases under the Press (Emergency Powers) Act the impugned article has to be read as a whole, in a fair, free and liberal spirit. Too much stress must not be laid on isolated sentences even if they are couched intemperate or objectionable language. The trend of the entire writing must be judicially weighed in the circumstances of the case. In view of the new democratic set-up in the country party government is the rule in a democratic regime and there should be ample latitude allowed to rival parties to criticise those in authority. This right should not be unreasonably or unduly curtailed by judicial fiat, especially during peace time. The drift of the passage is clear. It amounts to a criticism of the Security Act for which the writer holds the Government responsible, with the result that, according to him, an atmosphere had been created, in which spirited youngmen could not come to the fore and liberty of speech had been suppressed. It may be noted that only a few days earlier, the Pakistan Legislature had passed the Security Act. It seems to me that though couched in somewhat questionable language, the passage amounts to no more than criticism of a legislative measure for which the party in power would naturally be held responsible and on the merits of which two opinions are possible. As such it does not appear to fall within the four corners of clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act. The writer in his zeal may have to a certain extent exceeded the Limits of fair criticism and may have resorted to hyperbole to add pungency and point to his argument but all that it amounts to is a condemnation of the internal and external policies of the party in power and as such does not appear to attract the provisions of section 4 of the Act. Per Kayani, J.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492