| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 1869 2000 SLD 1869 2000 CLC 722 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.23002 of 1999, decision dated: 12-01-2000
KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J
Pir S.A. Rashid for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin Lone, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for
Respondents
Writ Petition No.23002 of 1999, decision dated: 12-01-2000
KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J
Pir S.A. Rashid for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin Lone, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for
Respondents
Malik QASIM NAWAZ
VS
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARGODHA and 3 others
Law:
Section:
Motion Pictures Ordinance (XLIII of 1979)-------S. 8---Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1984, R.80---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.292/294---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Raid, seizure and sealing of cinema---City Magistrate alongwith Naib-Tehsildar and some police constables raided cinema where blue film was allegedly being exhibited--- Said officials took film in possession, sealed cinema and registered case against licensee of cinema---Action taken against petitioner was penal in nature which under provisions of S.8(5) of Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, could be taken by Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector duly authorised by District Magistrate---City Magistrate who raided cinema and sealed same, was not a Police Officer and even if authority conferred on him by order of District Magistrate be deemed valid, he could not have seized film nor sealed the cinema -Action taken by Authorities against petitioner was declared illegal by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. JUDGMENT According to F.I.R. No.447 of 1999, registered at Police Station Urban Area District Sargodha, under section 18 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) read with section 292/294, P.P.C. registered on the written complaint of respondent No.2, respondent No.2 alongwith respondent No.3 and some police constables raided, the premises of Naz Cinema, where he found that a blue film was being exhibited, which being illegal, the film was taken into possession. One or two persons present there were arrested while the others managed their escape. The F.I.R. further states that cinema in question has been sealed. The S.H.O. has been asked to register the case. The petitioner, who claims to be the licensee of the cinema, feeling aggrieved, has challenged the raid, seizure and the sealing of the cinema as illegal, through this Constitutional petition. 2. In their joint report respondents Nos. l to 3 have defended the impugned action. It is asserted that vide order, dated 12-8-1997, passed by the District Magistrate, Sargodha, all the Executive Magistrates working in Sargodha District have been…
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