Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 260 of 1967, decided on 10th October 1967.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 7th August 1967, in Criminal Revision No. 382 of 1967).

S. 423‑Reduction of sentence‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court granted to con sider whether alteration of conviction and reduction of sentence made by lower appellate Court were based upon principles consistent with safe dispensation of criminal justice‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3).

R. A. Jeremy, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 10th October 1967.

‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, altering the convictions of the first two respondents herein from section 307/34. to section 324/34 and substantially reducing their sentences.

It appears that the said two respondents were charged with having entered the premises of the petitioner‑society situated in Anarkali Bazar, Lahore, and set fire to a show‑case therein containing books. They were also charged with having caused injures to two of the employees of the said society by firing on them with an unlicensed pistol. They were both convicted under sections 307/34 and 436/34, P. P. C., and ordered to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment each under each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 under each count. The respondent Altaf Hussain was also convicted under the Arms Act and sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court did not, however, specify as to whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively.

On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the convictions and sentences but be made the sentence to run concurrently. The respondent Zahid Hussain alone challenged this conviction by a revision petition in the High Court. The High Court took the view that although both the accused had before the trial Court admitted having fired and injured the two employees of the petitioner‑society, they claimed that they had done so under grave provocation, as the petitioner society was selling highly obnoxious and objectionable material intended to insult the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon Him) and to hurt the religious beliefs of Muslims. Therefore, even though there was no grave and sudden provocation there was sufficient provocation to justify the alteration of the conviction.

The petitioner‑society now prays for special leave to appeal and it is contended on its behalf that the learned Judge in the High Court has not only ignored the fact that the accused in the case clearly pleaded guilty to the charges but also misread the evidence in so far as there was no evidence in the case to show that the petitioner‑society or its servants were selling any of the said objectionable books or material. Indeed, the evidence was to the effect that it was the Religious Book Society whose premises were adjacent to the premises of the petitioner‑society who were selling those objectionable books. In the circumstances, there could have been no provocation given by either the society or its employees.

The contention of the learned counsel appears to be not without force, as the evidence referred to by the learned Judge himself shows that the respondent Altaf Hussain had actually purchased these objectionable books from the Religious Book Society and not from the petitioner‑society or from the injured persons.

The evidence of Sanaullah (P. W. 10) which had been relied upon by the learned Judge, also shows that this witness stated clearly that they never sent their own publications to the petitioner‑society for sale or exchange. The injured persons also stated that when the respondent Altaf came and demanded the book entitled "Asmar‑i‑Shireen" from him he told him that this was not available with them but it could be bad from the Punjab Religious Book Society. Notwithstanding this state ment the respondent Zahid Hussain threw kerosene oil on him and the respondent Altaf shot at him with the pistol. This is a fit case, therefore, in our opinion, for considering as to whether the alteration of the conviction and reduction of the sentence are based upon principles consistent with the safe dispensation of criminal justice. Leave is, accordingly, granted to examine the evidence in this case. Bailable warrants returnable to the District Magistrate, Lahore, will issue against the first two respondents herein.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.