1. This petition arises out of dismissal of the appeal by the Sessions Judge, Pabna against the order of conviction and sentence passed under rule 47 (S) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules.
2. Facts leading to the present petition are that at about 2 p. m. On 16-3-67 an urgent requisition meeting of the Pabna Bar Association was held in the Pabna Bar Library Hall to discuss about the supply of Bhutta and wheat in the ration shop and casualties by food poisoning in Pabna on 15-3-
67. The meeting was presided over by the petitioner Mr. Md. Monsur Ali, Advocate who was the President of the Bar Association. The members present in the meeting discussed the agenda and thereafter passed a resolution which was said to have been dictated by the petitioner. The resolution was circulated to the Deputy Commissioner, Pabna, Governor of East Pakistan and other authorities, including the press. The officer-in-charge of Pabna Police Station suo motu filed a First Information Report under rule 47 (5) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules on 25-3-67 and after himself investigating the case submitted charge-sheet, whereupon the petitioner was put on trial and was charged under the aforesaid Rule to which he pleaded not guilty. His defence was that the impugned resolution did not offend the Provisions of the Defence of Pakistan Rules; that he did not dictate the resolution and that as the President of the meeting he signed the resolution in usual course. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Pabna found the petitioner guilty of the charge and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year. He preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence but the learned Sessions Judge, Pabna upheld the conviction and sentence. Thereafter the petitioner filed this revisional application and obtained this Rule.
3. Mr. Abdus Salam Khan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken me through the resolution and invited my attention to the passage in the judgment of the Sessions Judge wherein it was stated that "the language used in the resolution was the strongest measure of condem--nation tending to bring the Government into hatred, contempt and disaffection," and contended that although the alleged offending words in the resolution No. 2 of the Pabna Bar Association namely, condemns inhumanly irresponsible action of the Government, were not happily worded yet they were not intended to bring into hatred or condemn the Government established by law in Pakistan as will appear from the 5th resolution under which Bar Association resolved to wait upon the District Authorities to apprise the real situation and for necessary action.
4. It was further contended that since the resolution was passed in a meeting of the Bar Association the members of which, being educated and responsible persons knew or expected to know the purpose of the meeting, the question of executing hatred or ill-feeling against the Government by resolution did not arise. He has also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Tofazzal Hossain and another v. Province of East Pakistan and others (1) which is commonly known as 'The Dacca Times' case and observed that in that case comparatively stronger words were used but they were not found to bring the Government to hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection towards Government. Before I take up the question whether the impugned resolution comes under rule 47(5) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, it is necessary to reproduce the resolution itself as well as the relevant Rule. The impugned resolution is as follows: - "(1) Discussed about the serious and alarming situation arising out of death caused by taking poisonous 'Bhutta' supplied to the people through various ration shops in and outside the Pabna town.
(2) This meeting takes serious view of this and severely condemns inhumanly irresponsible action of the Government in supplying poisonous food materials through rations and demands of the Government that immediate and suitable compensation be given to the family members of the persons who have died on taking this poisonous Bhutta and wheat.
(3) This meeting further demands of the Government immediate suitable action against those who are responsible for supplying of this poisonous food-grains.
(1) 17 D L R 498
(4) This meeting severely condemns indiscriminate firing on the members of the public by the Central Parliamentary Secretary of Food Mr. S. A. H. Zaidi, resulting in the deaths of several persons and injuries on some and demands an immediate judicial enquiry by tribunal headed by a High Court Judge and demands adequate compensation for the members of the family of the victims and condemns this indiscriminate and unwarranted firing and serious action should be taken against those persons responsible for this situation.
(5) All the members on behalf of the Bar to wait upon the District authorities to apprise the real situation and for necessary action."
5. Rule 47 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules is as follows: -- 47.r-(1) No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse-
(a) do any prejudicial act ; or
(5) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this rule, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both 'Prejudicial Act' has been defined in sub-rule (6) of rule 41 as meaning any act which is intended or is likely:--
(a) ...........
(b) .........
(c) ...........
(d) ...........
(e) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in Pakistan:
(f) ...........
(g) ...........
(h) to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public.
6. The learned Courts below found upon the evidence that the resolution in question was dictated by the petitioner. This is a question of fact which has been settled by the concurrent finding of boat the Courts. In upholding the Judgment of the trial Court the learned Sessions Judge held that the words "Condemns inhumanly irresponsible action of the Government in supplying poisonous food materials to ration shops" are direct challenge to the Government, and so were the words "Condemns indiscriminate firing on the members of the public by the Central Parliamentary Secretary" and that the words of the resolution were seditious and were intended or likely to intend hatred, contempt and disaffection to the Government. The words 'hatred', "Contempt" and 'disaffection' occurring in the definition of "Prejudicial Act" have not been defined in any of the Statutes but, fortunately, they have been elucidated by judicial pronouncements. In the case of Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak and another (1), Strachey J. In his charge to the jury defined the words `disaffection' as meaning "hatred enmity, dislike, hostility, contempt and every form of ill- will to the Government" and stated that the whole question is one of the intention of the accused as to whether he intended to excite in the minds feelings of disaffection or enmity to the Government or intended merely to excite disapprobation of certain Govern--ment measures. It was a case under section 124-A of the Penal Code and the gist of offence therein lies in exciting or attempting to excite disaffection against Government. The exposi--tion of the law of sedition by Strachey J. In the above case was approved by the Privy Council subsequently in the case of Emperor v.
7. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao (2) which was a case under rule 34(6) (e) of the Defence of India Rules and their Lordships of the Privy Council held that there was no material distinction between Rule 34(6) (e) and section 124-A of the Penal Code though it might be suggested that the words "an Act which is intended or likely to bring" in the Rule are wider than the words "brings or attempts to bring" in the Code. In this case also the language of Strachey J. In the case of Bal Gangadhar Tilak was approvingly quoted. It may be stated here that the definition of the term "Prejudicial Act" as given in clauses (e) and (g) of rule 34(6) of the Defenceof India Rules is substantially the same as given in clauses (e) and (h) of rule 41(6) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. In the case of Sher Muhammad v. The Crown (3) a Special Bench of the Lahore High Court had to consider the implication of the offence in section 4(l) of the Press Act i.e, the Press (Emergency Power;) Act 1931 and of the offence of sedition as described in section 124-A of the Penal Code and Cornelius, J. (as his Lordship then was) while delivering the judgment observed that the mischief of section 4 of the Press Act is, however, very much wider than that of section 124-A of the Penal Code, and proceeded to explain the meaning of the terms, contempt and hatred. His Lordship stated that the word `contempt' in the active sense may be defined as "the act of viewing another as mean, vile or worthless" and `hatred' is `a sustained feeling of bitter aversion or dislike generally combined with a desire to injure, destroy or get rid of its object'. In the case of the `Daily Ehsan' reported in PLD 1949 Lab. 282 which was also a case under the Press Act of 1931, the word `hatred' was defined as meaning aversion carried to the point at which there is a desire to injure or destroy the object of the emotion and contempt means more than regarding the object as inferior; it involves an opinion that the object of a vile, despicable or worthless character'. The law relating to sedition in the context of the circumstances obtaining at present was further considered by this Court in the case of Tofazzal Hossain v. Province of East Pakistan (4) and it was observed that 'in order to determine
(1) I L R 22 Bom. 112 (2) AIR 1947 P C 82
(3) AIR 1949 Lab. 218(4) PLD 1965 Dacca 478 if a particular publication is seditious or not it is to be seen what effect it is likely to produce in the minds of its readers and further that while construing and offending publication the same should be considered as a whole in fair, free and -liberal spirit, without laying stress or emphasis on strong or irritating words used here and there'.
8. Viewed in the light of the definition of the terms `disaffection', `hatred' and `contempt', can the impugned resolu--tion be construed as an act which was intended or was likely to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffec--tion towards the Government? Or was the resolution intended or likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to an section of the public. The resolution was passed in the wake of large scale disturbance in the town of Pabna resulting from) death of some people on taking poisonous wheat and Bhutta rumours were afoot that they were being supplied by Government through ration shops and people were already stricken with fear and were alarmed. It does not appear from the record that any untoward incident took place after the resolution was passed. The resolution read as a whole conveys the impression that the members of the legal profession conscious of their role as leaders of public thought be took themselves to the task of apprising the authorities of the seriousness of the situation so that necessary actions may be taken speedily. While expressing themselves through the resolution, they no doubt employed strong and bitter words here and there but such words cannot be considered in isolation and construed) as seditious. In a democratic country, such as Pakistan was claimed to be at the time the resolution was' passed, people's right to express themselves freely and, if need be, strongly and even bitterly against what were considered to be lapses of the Government could not be denied, so long as such expression did not degenerate to mere abuse tending to rouse people's emotions to a pitch at which they might resort to, violence.
9. Mr. A. T, M. Masud, learned Deputy Legal Remembrances appearing on behalf of the State contended that the resolu--tion condemning the action of Government in supplying poisonous food materials through ration, was not fair as the offending food materials were not supplied by Government ration shops. Mr. Abdus Salam Khan on the other hand contended that there is no material on record to show that the poisonous articles of food were supplied by private shops and not by Government shops. It appears from the record that the people were carried away by rumours that the poisonous wheat and Bhutta were being supplied to modified shops and the resolution of the Bar Association seems to have taken note of this fact.
10. On a careful consideration of the resolution in a `fair, free and liberal spirit' and having regard to the circumststanc which impelled the Bar Association to pass the same. Ihave no doubt that the resolution cannot be construed as a Prejudicial act within the meaning of clauses (e) and (h) of rule 41(6) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules and as such they conviction and sentence of the petitioner under rule 47 there of cannot be sustained in law.
11. In the circumstances, the Rule is made absolute and the order of conviction of the petitioner is set aside. As I am inform--ed that the sentence of the petitioner has already been remitted, it need not be set aside.