1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---This is an application under section 99-B, Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' to set aside the notification dated 8-1-2002 by which the Provincial Government have forfeited the booklet titled "FIRQAY KESAY MIT SAKTAY HAIN" written by Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz, on the ground that it carries contents which are blasphemous, subversive and likely to hurt the sentiments of Muslims. The applicant "IDARA-E-TULOO-E-ISLAM" is a Trust which preserve, propagate and publish the writings of Ghulam Ahmad Pervaiz.
2. ' We have heard the Advocate for the applicant, A.A.-G. For the State and perused the record of this case very carefully.
3. ' The impugned Notification reads as under:-- "No, XII(01)S0J/2002.---Whereas, the Government of Sindh is satisfied that the booklet titled "Firqay Kesay Mit Saktay Hein" written by Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz, carries contents which are blasphemous, subversive and likely to hurt the sentiments of muslims.
4. ' And whereas, the above mentioned booklet is liable to forfeiture or containing objectionable material under section 99-A of Cr . P .0 .
5. 1898.
6. ' Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Government of Sindh is pleased to impose ban upon further circulation of the aforesaid book in the Province of Sindh and declare that all copies of the same if found in circulation be forfeited for Government of Sindh with immediate effect."
7. ' Learned Advocate for the applicant has attacked the notification mainly on the ground that it does not contain the portion of objectionable material or the grounds for forfeiture of the booklet.
8. The learned, A.A.-G. Conceded the above position and has further added that he is not expert in the field, therefore, an expert may be appointed to take out the objectionable material from the booklet. Thus it is an admitted position and as clear from the notification itself that the objectionable portions of the booklet are not mentioned in it. The booklet contains 25 pages. The bare reading of section 99-A clearly shows that where it appears to the Provincial Government that any newspaper or document contains any treasonable or seditious matter or any matter which is prejudicial to national integration or any matter which promotes or is intended to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of Pakistan or which is deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of such class by insulting the religion or the religious beliefs of that class or any matter of publication of which is punishable under section 123- A or section 124-A or section 154-A or sections 295-A, 298-A, B and C of the Pakistan Penal Code, the Provincial Government may by notification in the official Gazette, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the issue of the newspaper containing such matter and every copy of such book or other document to be forfeited to Government. Therefore, first, the competent authority is required to mention the objectionable material in the booklet or newspaper and secondly notification should show the grounds of opinion declaring the issue or newspaper or document containing such material to be objectionable and then document can be forfeited.
9. ' In the present case as already pointed out that the notification does not show the objectionable passage or passages of the booklet so that the applicant may know as to what portions of the booklet are objectionable. The notification also does not show any grounds forming such opinion by the competent authority. If the request of the learned A.A.-G. is accepted in appointing expert to point out the objectionable material then that will be the opinion of such expert and not the opinion of the competent authority of Provincial Government. As such the same would not fulfil the requirement of law. Even if we after going through the entire booklet found objectionable material then that, too, will be the opinion of the Court and not the opinion of the Provincial Government. By merely showing in the notification that the, booklet carries contents which are blasphemous, subversive and likely to hurt the sentiments of Muslims is not enough buts, the Provincial Government should have intelligently considered the booklet and detect from it the words which the competent authority thought violated the law. The authority should have not left it to the Court to pick out such words from the booklet. It is possible that the opinion of the Provincial Government and this Court might come in conflict with each other as if the Court thought the particular portion of the booklet as objectionable which the Provincial Government might thought otherwise, as such, the law requires that the required opinion should be that of Provincial Government only. It is not permissible to challenge the opinion of the Court before the same Court. As such, it will be against the spirit of law. Thus, the law demands that there should be, in the notification itself pointing out the references to the objectionable passage or passages but that is lacking in the case. This defect itself is sufficient to hold the notification as illegal.
10. ' Furthermore the notification shows that the objectionable material was likely to hurt the sentiments of Muslims. There are different sects of Muslims, therefore, normally attempts are made to insult the religious feelings of different sects of Muslims. Without mentioning such sect it will be presumed that the booklet contains objectionable reading which injures the feelings of Muslims in general and quite obviously there is no intention to set one sect against another. Section 153-A, P.P.C. Was intended to cover a case where one sect injures the religious feelings of another sect of Muslim or a Muslim injures the feelings of a Christian: Thirdly, the notification does not show the grounds or reasons on which the required opinion was formed as required under sections 99-A of D the Code and 24-A, General Clauses Act that reads as under:-- "24.A. Exercise of power under enactments. --(1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) The authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order, or as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or, as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially. "
11. ' After considering the material available on the record we are of the considered view that the impugned notification is not sustainable under law, therefore by our short order dated 4-4-2006 we had allowed the application and set aside the impugned notification. These are the reasons thereof.