| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 180 1957 SLD 180 = 1957 PLD 43 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 11954, decided on 13th September 1956.
(Appellate Civil Jurisdiction) Before G. B. Constantine, Inamullah and Wahidudding Ahmad, JJ
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto for Petitioner. H. T. Raymond, Public Prosecutor for Opponent-1.
Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 11954, decided on 13th September 1956.
(Appellate Civil Jurisdiction) Before G. B. Constantine, Inamullah and Wahidudding Ahmad, JJ
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto for Petitioner. H. T. Raymond, Public Prosecutor for Opponent-1.
ANWAR SHAIKH-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER'S PROVINCE OF KARACHI AND THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Opponents
Law: Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931)
Section: 4, 23, 25 (1), 4 (1) (d)
P L D 1957 (W. P.) Karachi 43 (a) Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), Ss. 4, 23 read with S. 25 (1)-High Court will set aside order if matter "in respect of which" it was made is not within mischief of S. 4 irrespective of whether any other matter is within such mischief or not. Subsection (1) of section 25 means that the Provincial Government's order shall be set aside if the High Court is of opinion that the words, signs or visible representations in respect of which the order in question was made, do not fall within the mischief of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Press Act. Section 23, therefore, cannot be construed so as to make it incumbent on the High Court to scrutinise the article in question in order to determine whether any part thereof is of a nature specified in any of the clauses of section 4. Sher Muhammad v. The Crown P L D 1949 Lah. 510 rel. (b) Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), S. 4 (1) (d)-Strong words, not arousing aversion to point of desire to injure or destroy ; not involving opinion that object of criticism is vile, despicable or of worthless character-Not within mischief of section. Where a pamphlet was strongly worded but it could not be said that the matter had the effect of arousing "aversion carried to the point at which there is a desire to injure or destroy the object of the emotion" or that it involved "an opinion that the object is of a vile, despicable or worthless character" and no affidavit had been filed by the Crown to show that in fact what had been stated by the author in the pamphlet was a misrepresentation of fact : Held, that the opinion, though strongly expressed could not be said to have the specified effect contemplated by subsection (1) (d) of section 4. In the matter of The Daily Ehsan P L D 1949 Lah. 282 and In the matter of Malik Nasrullah Khan Aziz v. The Crown P L D 1950 Lah. 420 ref. JUDGMENT INAMULLAH, J.---This Special Bench has been constituted under section 24 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, to…