Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Constitutional Petition No. D‑1480 of 1978, decided on 7th November, 1979.
-----Ss. 24(1) & 27(i ‑Notice not stating or describing words signs or visible representations' in impugned article attracting provisions of S. 24(1)‑Such notice, held, not in accordance with law, illegal‑ Order calling upon petitioner to furnish Security in pursuance of such notice set aside.
Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. State P L D 1959 Pesh. 77 and Sultan Muhammad v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1976 Lah. 585 ref.
Nooruddin Sarki for Petitioner.
A. Sattar Shaikh Addl., A.‑G. for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 7th November, 1979.
.‑The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner who is the Publisher and Editor of the Monthly Urdu Magazine "AWAZ" received from the Secretary, Government of Sind, Home Department, a notice dated 20‑7‑1978 requiring her to show cause why she should not called upon to deposit a security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) for having published in the June, 1978 issue of AWAZ an article (relevant extract enclosed), which allegedly attracted the provisions of clause (1) of subsection (i) of section 24 of the Press and Publication Ordinance,' 1963. The petitioner made a reply in which she alleged that the material published was a review of a book entitled "MYTH OF INDEPENDENCE", whose author is the former Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, which could not be regarded as objectionable material under the said Ordinance. The explanation was not found satisfactory with the result that the petitioner was served another, notice under subsection (i ) of. section 27 of the said Ordinance in which it was alleged that the said article attract the provisions of clause (l) of subsection (i) of section 24 of the said Ordinance and she was called upon to deposit with the District Magistrate, Karachi (South) security m the sum of Rs. 10,000 in cash or equivalent thereof before 5th of November, 1978.
2. Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged both the notice and the subsequent order on the ground that they fail "to state or describe the words signs or visible representations" in the impugned article which attracted the provisions of clause (l).of section 24 of the said Ordinance. The settled law is that both under section 24 as well as section 27, the Government has "to state or describe" in an order under section 27, the words "signs or visible representations", which in the opinion of the Government attract section 24, failing which the consequent order made thereon cannot be sustained in law. (See P L D 1959 Pesh. 77) P L D 1976 Lab. 585 and judgment in Constitutional Petition No. D‑1610/1978 of this Court).
3. Mr. Sattar Shaikh, the learned Additional Advocate‑General sought to meet this contention by reference to the impugned notice dated 20‑7‑1978 which stated that the relevant extract from the article had been enclosed. The petitioner contends that there was no such enclosure to the notice and this appears to be correct inasmuch as on the original notice itself the petitioner while acknowledging it, had mentioned that the enclosure had not been supplied to her. Furthermore this specific allegation is repeated in the petition to which no counter‑affidavit has been filed. Faced with this situation the learned Additional Advocate‑General referred to the reply given by the petitioner to this notice in which she refers to "the material of the issue of June 1978 of Monthly AWAZ referred to in your above notice . . . . .", and sought to argue that this was an admission that the objectionable material had been received by the petitioner. The reply given by the petitioner may as well refer to the article itself and not to the alleged enclosure which is said to contain the words complained of appearing in the article.
4. The result, therefore, is that the said notice being not in accordance with law is held to be of no legal effect and with that will fall the consequent order calling upon the petitioner to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 10,000. The petitioner will also be entitled to costs.
M. Y. H. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer