Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 646 of 1968, heard on 5th August, 1980.

--- Ss. 439 & 144 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 188 Revision (criminal)-Order of District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate banning use of loud-speaker in mosques not placed on record--Conviction of petitioner under S. 188, P. P. C. held, could not be maintained, being illegal-Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstance.

Syed Farooq Hassan Nasir for Appellant.

Sahibzada Saeed ul-Hameed for A.-G. (Punjab) for the State.

Date of hearing: 5th August 1980

Javed Khan has filed this revision petition against the order of learned Additional District Magistrate, Multan, dated 21st May 1968, whereby he dismissed his appeal, which had been filed against the judgment of 2nd Class Magistrate, Khanewal, dated 12th February 1968. Maulvi Saleman Tariq had not challenged the judgment of the trial Court.

2. The allegation against the petitioner was that on the night between l3/14th September, 1967, the petitioner had made arrangement for speech in Jamia Masjid and the speech was delivered by Suleman Tariq co-accused on loud-speaker and it was in contravention of the order of competent authority, whereby a ban had been imposed on the use of loud-speaker. The petitioner and his co-accused were examined by the trial Court. Maulvi Suleman Tariq stated that he did made a religious speech in the light of Qur'an and Hadith. He further stated that he was not aware that there was a prohibition for the use of the loud-speaker. Javed Khan petitioner stated that previously there had been speeches in the mosque and he nowhere read in the newspaper or learnt through other source that the use of the loud-speaker was prohibited under section 144, Cr. P. C.

3, The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and his co-accused under section 188, P. P. C. and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 10.

4, The record has been checked. No order of the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate prohibiting the use of the loud-speaker had been placed on the record. The learned Magistrate and the appellate Court clearly fell into error in ignoring this aspect of the case. Unless the prosecution produced the order of the District Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate that the use of the loud-speaker in the mosque was banned, no offence could have been committed. In these circumstances, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate and the appellate Court are set aside.

Although, Maulvi Suleman Tariq had not filed the appeal or the revision petition, conviction against him is also set aside as the judgment of the trial Court could not be maintained as being illegal. The amount of fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to Javed Khan petitioner and Maulvi Suleman Tariq co-accused.

Revision allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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