1. ' MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.---Through the instant criminal revision, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 04.4.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi, Chakdara, District Dir Lower, whereby complaint filed by petitioner under sections 500/501, P.P.C. against present respondent Ahmad Shah has been dismissed along with application for re- inquiry, resultantly, accused/respondent was discharged.
2. 2.Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused with their able assistance.
3. 3.From perusal of the record, it reveals, that present petitioner filed a complaint with prayer to punish respondent under sections 500/ 501, P.P.C. Ahmad Shah, who according to complaint is by profession a local journalist working for daily newspaper "Chand" on the ground that he levelled certain false allegations against him, so, committed gross misconduct and caused defamation to the petitioner.
4. 4.The complaint was referred to SHO concerned for inquiry by the local Magistrate, who submitted his report on 24.02.2016, whereafter, the learned trial Court seized of the matter summoned the respondent, fixed the case for framing of charge as well as preliminary arguments about application of section of law and also for application in respect of re-inquiry filed by the petitioner.
5. 5.Both the learned counsel for the parties argued the case and also submitted written arguments before the learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, the same complaint along with the applications was dismissed and accused/respondent vide impugned order/judgment dated 04.4.2016 was discharged.
5. It transpired from the record that complaint was filed over publishing of news item in the daily newspaper "Chand " Swat on Monday 9th of September, 2013, reported by local journalist, present respondent, about inspection of Chakdara Civil Hospital by the then Assistant Commissioner Chakdara which news item disclosed certain facts about irregularities in the Civil Hospital, non- availability of some medical instruments and other articles valuing in millions of rupees donated by someforeignNon-Governmental Organization (N.G.O.).
6. 6.The same particular news clipping has been annexed with the instant petition. The said news item also disclosed that above special inspection/raid was conducted upon the direction of local Member of Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mr. Bakht Baidar Khan.
7. 7.Ironically, the complainant has neither filed any complaint against that Assistant Commissioner nor against the mover of the raid i.e. the local Member of Provincial Assembly, except the present respondent, the local journalist, who only reported that special inspection to newspaper.
8. 8.The learned trial Court has held that -about said reporting of the fact and publishing of that matter in the said newspaper could not be termed as defamation caused allegedly to petitioner.
9. Moreover, the inquiry report annexed with the petition attributed to respondent, when gone through, it transpired that said inquiry was conducted by Director General Health, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vide letter No. 15515-22/E-1 dated 10.9.2015 upon the complaint of local Member of Provincial Assembly Mr. Bakht Baidar Khan.
10. 9.The said published news item in the newspaper disclosed certain anomalies, irregularities and inconvenience caused to the general public in the public hospital Tehsil Headquarter Hospital Chakdara, which runs on provincial public fund.
11. 10.So far as the question of applicability of sections of law i.e. 500/501, P.P.C. is concerned, the learned trial Court has dilated upon the matter comprehensively having discussed all its aspects.
12. The complainant/present petitioner being public servant falls under the 8th description of Section 21 of Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which runs as below:- S. 21. "Public Servant." The words "public servant" denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following namely:-- First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eight:- Every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice or to protect the public health, safety, or convenience: 11.So, petitioner being a provincial government employee the complainant is bound under his contractual obligation to protect public health being a doctor in the concerned Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Chakdara governed by Provincial Health A Department and is drawing his salary from public exchequer and under second exception of section 499, P.P.C. is not exempted from any opinion expressed in good faith. For comprehension Section 499, P.P.C. is reproduced as below:-- Section 499 (Defamation). Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by sign or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
13. First exception Second exception:- Public conduct of public savants "It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further"</i>
12. So, the learned trial Court after securitizing the contents of the complaint, nature of allegations made therein, material in support of alleged offences, possibility of victimization and harassment of the respondent, has dismissed the complaint in view of section 203 of Cr.P.C. without. In this respect wisdom is derived from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled as "Abdul Wahab Khan v. Muhammad Nawaz and 7 others cited as 2000 SCM R 1904. The relevant principle enunciated therein is reproduced as under:-- "The pivotal question as to whether the complaint could have been dismissed under section 203, Cr. P. C. has been considered in the light of provisions as contained in the said section and a bare perusal whereof would show that the complaint can be dismissed without having preliminary inquiry as no such embargo has been placed on the Court concerned. "In this regard reference can be made on PLJ 1997 Criminal case 5 and 1996 PCr.LJ 1615.
13. From the perusal of the news item published upon the report of the respondent/ journalist it is held that the allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint under sections 500/501, P.P.C. are not attracted and applicable, as the respondent has performed his duty by reporting a raid conducted by Assistant Commissioner Chakdara on the direction of local member of provincial assembly, which is his privilege as people's representative who complained about same irregularities, mismanagement and misuse of public fund in the interest of public in the said Hospital. In the case in hand, all that was a fact reported and published was about the raid/inspection conducted by the Assistant Commissioner upon Tehsil Headquarter hospital, as discussed above, so, all that reporting is saved and no offence of defamation has been made out as the very element of 'Mens rea' , which is essential element for defamation is missing. In the entire case there is nothing on record, which had allegedly lowered down the reputation of complainant/petitioner even no name of petitioner has been given in the news item rather is about the inspection/raid on the hospital.
14. On the other hand, rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan under Article 19 are " Freedom of speech etc are fundamental rights. The provisions contained in Article 19 are reproduced as under:-- Article 19. Freedom of speech etc.---Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or Defence of Pakistan or any part thereof friendly relation with foreign states public order decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, commission of or incitement to an offence"
14. 15.The plain reading of the above-referred Article shows that fundamental rights have been protected for expression and freedom of press.
15. 16.The upshot of the above discussion is that no prima facie case under sections 500/501, P.P.C. has been made out and continuance of proceedings before the learned trial Court would be abuse of the process of the Court, so, the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned Court below through the impugned order, to which no exception could be made out.
16. 17.Hence, in view of the above, the instant criminal revision being bereft of merits stands dismissed.