Find a Lawyer

ADNAN PRINCE versus THE STATE THROUGH P.G., PUNJAB

ection Sections 497 - Code of Conduct (XLV of I860), Sections 295A, 295B and 295C, defamatory remarks on sacrilegious insults of any class religion or religious beliefs, copy of the Quran, etc. Etc. to use. Prophet Akram, Grant - more than two years delayed at the end of the trial trial - records show that three years and three months have passed since the arrest of the accused - delay in trial fraud is primarily for prosecution or court Is caused by Myself - Even if the defendant's plea seeking his lawyer's absence or absence was dismissed, his total detention at trial was more than two years only. Despite a three-year and three-month probation period headed by only one person, the witness was recorded during the trial - the instant trial was the right of every accused, therefore, in the trial of such cases. Unnecessary delay would be equivalent to denial of justice - the defendant filed a case for grant of bail, leading to the non-termination of his trial. Minor delay guaranteed [PP 149, 150, 151] A, B & E

P L D 2017 Lahore 147

Before Faisal Zaman Khan, J

Mir ABDUL RAZZAQ—Appellant

versus

D.C.O., GUJRAT—Respondent

Press Civil Appeal No.651 of 2016, heard on 21st June, 2016.

Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance (XCVIII of 2002)—

—Ss. 19, 2(m) & 20—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25—Publication of a news item by newspaper qua an incident involving desecration of Holy Quran—Cancellation of declaration of newspaper—Jurisdiction— District Coordination Officer issued show cause notice and after reply cancelled the declaration issued in favour of appellant—Validity— District Coordination Officer could take the cognizance of the issue on the application of Press Registrar involving violation of S. 19 of Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002 and thereupon after inquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing could cancel the declaration—Matter was not referred by the Press Registrar to the District Coordination Officer—District Coordination Officer on his own motion and without any referral from the Press Registrar took up the matter and cancelled the declaration—District Coordination Officer had no authority to take up the matter himself and cancel the declaration of the appellant—Impugned order was without lawful authority and coram non judice—Exercise by the District Coordination Officer was hit by Art. 25 of the Constitution as another newspaper which committed same offence was not proceeded against—Criminal case had been registered in furtherance of the offence and trial had commenced—News item was not without any basis—Impugned order being without lawful authority and coram non judice was set aside—Appeal was allowed in circumstances. [PP- 150, 152] A, B, C, D, E & F

Qaisar Nadeem Saqi v. District Coordination Officer (DCO) Hafizabad and 8 others PLD 2006 Lah. 76; Muhammad Idrees AASI.v. District Coordination Oficer, Faisalabad and 2 others 2009 CLC 1163 and Abdul Samad Khan v. Assistant Commissioner (SECTT) IC, Islamabad and another PLD 2013 Isl. 71 rel.

Muhammad Irfan Malik for Appellant.

Faisal M. Buttar, A.A.G, along with Ikram ul Haq D.O. (Industries), Gujrat for Respondents.’

Date of hearing: 21st June, 2016.

patent advocate from Satyana Bangla lawyer

♡ Favourites 0