' Wahid Bakhsh son of Ramzan, Abdullah Shah, Manzur Shah, Iqbal Hussain Shah, Allah Ditta, Mst.
Ghulam Zainab, Ghulam Murtaza Shah, Manzur Ahmad Shah and Wahid Bakhsh son of Allah Ditta were separately tried for violating the terms and conditions of their respective temporary licences issued in the name of each of them for taking out a Tazia procession as `Qaza-eMoharranf on 24th March 1970 resulting in their conviction under section 32 of the Police Act with a sentence of Rs,50 as fine for each of them. Their revisions were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, on 4th March, 1972. Each of them had consequently filed a separate petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. To question the correctness of these orders mainly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the petitioners had any knowledge about the terms or conditions of the licences issued by the police for these processions. Reliance was placed on Emperor v. Bhagwat Singh and others AIR 19_41 Lah. 372, Aghora Chandra Deb Burma and others v. State AIR 1964 Tripura 52 and Sundara Mudaliar and others v. State AIR 1937 Madras 535. All these petitions Criminal Revisions Nos. 1101/A to 1101/G, 1101/I and 1101/J of 1972 were accordingly admitted to a regular hearing and are being disposed of by this single order as the same set of witnesses had been examined in each case and their defence was nearly the same.
2. According to the prosecution a temporary licence was issued to each of these petitioners (a copy of which has been placed on record of each case separately) prohibiting the processionists from raising any slogans or resorting to lamentation or elegising for a distance of 40 Karams on each side while passing in front of Masjid Awanwali in Block No,26 of City Dera Ghazi Khan which the petitioners violated as deposed to by Sufi Allah Wasaya (P.W.1) Khateeb Masjid Awanwali, Abdul Monir (P.W.2), Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh, Assistant Collector, Taunsa (P.W.3), Sheikh Fazal Hussain, Sadar Anjuman Dokandaran, Dera Ghazi Khan (P.W.4) and Muhammad Jafar A.S.I. (P.W.5) at the trial. The last-named (A.S.I. Muhammad Jafar) is said to have drawn out the relevant licence in each case under the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Dera Ghazi Khan and bore his signatures, while Abdul Munir S.H.O. And Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh, E.A.C. Then Assistant Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan were accompanying the procession to control and supervise the same on the eventful day. The other two witnesses, namely, Allah Wasaya, Khateeb Masjid Awanwali and Fazal Hussain were present in the mosque at that time. Even if the evidence of the last-mentioned two witnesses is excluded from consideration on account of their sectarian alignment, there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh, a responsible officer of the District, who had confirmed the above allegations against each of the petitioners. He had stated in unequivocal terms that as the processionists passed by the mosque they continued mourning and lamenting as usual and some of the precisionists even cried in front of the mosque Awanwali as a result of which Sufi Allah Wasaya (P.W.1) declared on the loudspeaker that they were defying the restrictions imposed upon them by the licences. He had also reiterated that the above-quoted condition had been imposed on the procession for that day and was incorporated in the licence issued to each of the petitioners. He also added that the prohibited distance was demarcated by the lines drawn out by Chuna (lime powder). Abdul Munir, S.H.O.
(P.W.2) had stated with reference to the said licence that a copy of the same had been delivered to each of the licensees by the Deputy Superintendent of Police adding that he had drawn out a complaint against each of the petitioners separately to prosecute them for this violation.
3. The stand taken by the petitioners in these cases that they had no knowledge of this specific condition of the licence could therefore, not hold the ground so the above authorities had no application.
' In fact the plea was never taken by any of them either in answer to the notice read out to each of them before the recording of the prosecution evidence or their statements under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they had rather stated therein that as a protest against the imposition of similar condition on Tazia for the 10th of Moharram they had declined to take out a procession on that day and had also desisted from taking out any Tazia on the Qaza-eMoharram. As a result of this boycott the local administration had victimized them by their prosecution in these cases which clearly indicated that they were aware of the relevant restriction imposed upon these Tazia.
Processions. The questions put in cross-examination to the prosecution witnesses also give the same indication. The defence led by them mostly referred to the arrangement on the preceding Moharram festivals and some meetings of local Amman Committee in this respect which had no bearing on the specific allegation made against them about the violation of this condition during the procession of Tazia for the celebration of Qaza-e-Moharram on 24th March, 1970. The defence witnesses had stated that during the meeting held on 10th Moharram the Deputy Commissioner was shown three licences which were silent about this restriction and he had ultimately lifted it in the presence of the Press correspondents who had sent this news for publication in Press as well, but neither the licences which did not mention this restriction nor the copy of that newspaper Imroze Daily' containing this news item had been placed on record in defence nor were produced before me during arguments. Moreover, the petitioners' case was that they had not brought out the Qaza procession at all in protest but their defence witnesses stated that this procession had passed in front of the said mosque quietly as a moral obligation. The defence led by them was inconsistent with their plea, writ had been rightly rejected.
4. As a result, these petitions have no substance and are accordingly dismissed but in view of the tolerance pleaded by Islam for the sectarian feelings of the others, I consider a token fine would meet the ends of justice in these cases and reduce the amount of fine to Rs,25 (Rs, Twenty-five only) for each of them which shall be paid within one month from today or in default each of them will suffer five days simple imprisonment.