Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 23 1967 SLD 23 1967 PLD 78
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1965, decided on 5th December 1966 (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 16th December 1963, in Criminal Revision No. 517 of 1963.)
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
S. Nasir-ud-Din, Advocate General West Pakistan (Ghazanfar Ali Shah, Assistant Advocate General West Pakistan and M. A. Zullah, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Appellant. Mahmud Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Ra

THE STATE

VS

Sardar ATAULLAH KHAN MANGAL

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--S. 124-A - Section ­Determination of guilt or innocence of person accused of offence under S. 124-A-Test: Whether words used had tendency to arouse contempt or hatred-Truth or falsity of matters stated in speech or writing immaterial-Truth of facts may, on contrary, be an aggravating factor Wording of , neither S. 124-A nor of Explanations appended thereto give accused any' right to adduce evidence of truth of facts stated - Such evidence not only inadmissible and irrelevant but also to be kept out of consideration even in determining quantum of punishment. A person was charged under section 124-A of the Penal Code, 1860 in respect of, a speech delivered by him. In the complaint by the State no question was raised as to the truth or falsity of the statements made by the accused. In the charge framed by the Magistrate also no such accusation was made, but at the trial when the defence attempted to elicit from the mouths of the defence witnesses that some of the statements of fact made by the accused in his .speech were factually correct and true, the Special Magistrate disallowed the questions holding that such evidence was inadmissible as truth could not be pleaded as a defence in such a prosecution. In revision a learned Single Judge of the High Court agreed with the Magistrate that the truth of facts mentioned in a seditious speech or writing could not be pleaded as a defence in a prosecution for sedition but held that, nevertheless, the truth of statements of fact was not wholly irrelevant and can be taken into consideration in determining quantum of punishment. In the Supreme Court, therefore, the question was: whet-her in a case, falling under section 124-A P. P. C., proof as regards truth of matters stated could form any defence and whether such proof is admissible and relevant for determining quantum of punishment. The leading was delivered by Hamoodur Rahman, J., with whom Cornelius, C. J. and Yaqub Ali, J., agreed. Per Cornelius, C. J.-In a case falling under section 124-A, P. P. C., where the charge is based upon a statement concerning measures taken or alleged to be taken by the Government, it is irrelevant for the…
🔒
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