' FAKIIRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-This Petition challenges an order dated 25-11-1978 made by the Provincial Government in exercise of powers conferred on it by subsection (1) of section 27 of the Sind Press and Publication Ordinance, 1963 directing the publisher of the Urdu daily "MASAWAAT" to deposit with the District Magistrate (South), Karachi security in the amount of Rs, 20,000, in cash or equivalent on or before 7-12-1978. Earlier the petitioner had on 17-8-1978 received a show-cause notice which reads as follows:- "Whereas it appears to the Government of Sind that the Urdu daily "Musawaat" printed at Progressive Printing Press Karachi published in its issue dated 13-8-1978, 13 (thirteen) photographs depicting commission of acts of crimes and violence which attract the provisions of clauses (a), (b),(c), (d) and (e) of subsection (1), of section 24 of the Press & Publications Ordinance, 1963, as applicable to Sind.
' Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by subsection (1) of section 27 of the said Ordinance the Government of Sind are pleased to require you to show cause within seven days of the receipt of this notice why you should not be required to deposit a security in the sum of twenty thousand rupees.
' A part from submitting your explanation within the period specified, if you so desire to be heard in person you may please make it convenient to see the undersigned in his office on 2-11-1973 at 11-00 a. In.
(Sd.) Kunwar Idris, Secretary of Government of Sind, Home Department."
2. Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Kharal, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on two' grounds: firstly that it was not in accordance with the law inasmuch as the show- cause notice failed "to state or describe the words, signs or visible representation", published in the petitioner's newspaper which in the opinion of the Government were in the nature complained of and secondly, that the order made was mala fide.
3. Coming to the second contention first, on which much stress was laid by the learned counsel, it was urged that the impugned order was as aforesaid made on 25-11-1978 but prior thereto on 16- 10-1978 the Provincial Government had imposed a censorship on the petitioner's newspaper whereby they were restrained from publishing any material without prior scrutiny of the Government. The argument was that the Government was well aware that the petitioner was already disabled from printing any material without the prior permission of the Government but all the same chose to impose an order for furnishing security under the Press Ordinance. We are unable to read any mala fides in the Government even on the assumption that the impugned order was made in full knowledge of the prior censorship order inasmuch as the Government could have been justified in making the latter order for the consequences that follow from the order for furnishing security under the Press Ordinance and an order of censorship under the West Pakistan (Public Maintenance Order) Ordinance may not be the same. The former will result in forfeiture of the security furnished and the latter may entail forfeiture of a press. A printer may be impudent enough to publish a material without censorship by the Government which will, in presence of an order of security, enable the Provincial Government to forfeit its security if the material so published is found to be objectionable independently of action, if any, for violating the censorship order.
4. As to the first contention the learned counsel invited our attention to section 24 of the Press and Publications Ordinance the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- "Power to close down press and forfeit security.-(1) Whenever it appears to the Government that any printing press is used for the purpose of printing or publishing any book or paper containing any words, signs or visible representations which-
(a) incite to or encourage, or tend to incite to or to encourage, the commission of any offence or murder or any cognizable offence involving violence, or
(b) directly or indirectly express approval of administration of any such offence, or of any person, real or fictitious, who had committed or is alleged or represented to have committed any such offence, or
(c) report crime of violence or sex in a manner likely to excite unhealthy curiosity or an urge to imitation, or
(d) tend directly or indirectly to put any person in fear or to cause annoyance to him and thereby induce him to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do, or
(e) tend directly or indirectly to encourage or incite any person to interfere with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order, or to commit any offence or to refuse, or defer payment of any land revenue, tax, rate, cess or other due or amount payable to Government or to any local authority or any rent of agricultural land or anything recoverable as arrears of or along with such rent, or ' The Government may, by order in writing to the keeper of such printing press, stating or describing the words, signs or visible representations which in its opinion are of the nature described above-
(i) direct that the printing press shall not be used for the printing or publishing of any book or paper for such period as may be specified in the order, and
(ii) declare that any security deposited under section 23, or a portion thereof shall be forfeited to the Government and may also declare all copies, such book or paper wherever found in the Province to be forfeited to the Government."
' The section clearly provides that the Government has to state or describe in an order under this section "the words, signs or visible representations" which in its opinion attract the clauses reproduced above. In the present case all that was stated in the show-cause notice was that the petitioner had published 13 photographs depicting acts of crime and violence which attract the aforesaid clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of section 24 of the Ordinance and the same is the allegation in the impugned notice. We have examined these photographs and find that by themselves, if the test of objectivity is applied, would not attract the clauses referred to above of section 24 of the Ordinance, for admittedly they do not more than visualise actual incidents of 12th August, 1978, which had been reproduced in several other leading newspapers as well. Mr. Ibrahim Memon, the learned Additional Advocate-General also conceded that the pictures by themselves would not have justified action under the Ordinance but was at pains to point out that the detailed captions given under the photographs clearly attract the provision of the said law. We have read these captions and are entirely in agreement with the learned Additional Advocate-General that most of them would certainly invite justifiable action under the Press Ordinance. However, the law requires that the words contained in the captions ought to have been stated in the show-cause notice as well as in the impugned order and this omission is unfortunately fatal to the respondent's defence to the present Petition. Similar words as contained in section 24 are also found in section 5 of the Press (Emergency of Powers) Act XXIII of 1931 which came up for examination before a Full Bench of the earstwhile West Pakistan High Court in the case reported in Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. The State (1), and the unanimous view that prevailed was that if words or passages are considered objectionable so as to justify action under the Ordinance the show-cause notice must state such material in the absence of which notice would be defective and inoperative. It was further held that it was not for the Court to pick out the objectionable words and sustain the action for in such an event it will be the Court which will become the accuser and not the Provincial Government. This decision was followed in PLD 1978 Lah. 585 by Nasim Hasan Shah, J., (as he then was) when an order made under the Press Ordinance was not sustained on the ground, among others, that the objectionable portions of the words were not specified in the show-cause notice which made the notice "insufficient and unenforceable".
4. We, therefore, hold in the present case that the show-cause notice in the tenor referred to above is contrary to the requirement of law and is incapable of giving rise to a valid order under section 24 of the Press Ordinance.
5. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned notice is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Since the petition succeeds for technical reasons only there will be no order as to costs. The petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the cash security of Rs, 20,000, deposited in this Court.
(1) PLD 1959 Pesh. 77