1. ' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, J.---Applicant Ghulam Husain Unnar stands charged with an offence under section 124-A, P.P.C. As a result of a complaint filed by Mr. Shahid Hamid, Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, in the Court of Special Judge (S.TA.) Court No,III, Karachi. The contents of the complaint are to the effect that Haji Ghulam Husain Unnar by leveling false allegations in writing has attempted to create hatred and has also attempted to excite disaffection against the lawful Governments of the Federation and the Provinces and that therefore, he has committed an offence of sedition. Such complaint was lodged by the Secretary, Home Department after the accused Haji Ghulam Husain Unnar had sent a writing to all the Presidents, all the Prime Ministers, all the Ambassadors, and all the Consulates-General of all the Countries of the world.
2. ' On receiving the complaint, the Judge, Special Court (S.TA.) took the cognizance of the same and passed an order in the following terms:-- "Perused complaint. The prima facie case is made out against the accused under section 124-A, P.P.C. Let the case be brought on regular file. Issue N.B.Ws. Against the accused."
3. ' It appears that the accused, who is in custody, thereafter moved an application for bail before the trial Judge, which was dismissed on 15-6-1995 and thereafter he has approached this Court.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has argued in detail and has stated that the writing issued by the applicant is owned by him but according to him provisions of section 124-A, P.P.C. Are not attracted and at the most it is only a case for contempt of Court and not for any criminal offence.
5. Learned counsel argued that although the maximum punishment provided for this offence is imprisonment for life but the punishment of fine and imprisonment for 3 years is also provided for this offence, therefore, it does not come within the prohibitory limits and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
6. ' Mr. Azizullah Shaikh also argued that the complaint was not properly filed as complainant had not appeared in person before the Court and merely on perusal of the complaint the Judge had passed the order bringing the case on file, hence there was no complaint against the applicant in the eyes of law.
7. ' Mr. K.M. Nadeem, AA.-G. Appearing for the State, has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant in vehement terms and has argued that the applicant has not only attempted to create hatred and disaffection among the residents of the country against the lawful Government, but has also maligned the President of Pakistan, the Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court and has tried to create hatred among the friendly countries as well as other nations of the world against the lawful Government of Pakistan and has lowered the people of Pakistan in the eyes of the citizens of other countries as the contents of the writing of applicant besides having been sent to the heads of States and Prime Minister, Ambassadors of all the countries of the world, were also got published in all the major Newspapers of the country, and were made known to all the citizens of Pakistan with the intention to bring hatred and disaffection against the lawful Government.
8. ' Learned AA.-G. Traced the events obtaining in the country with reference to the writing of the applicant, which was also addressed to the Ambassador and the President of America and he stated that the Government of U.SA. Was at the brink of declaring Pakistan as a "Terrorist State", and all efforts were being made by the lawful Government of Pakistan to avoid this anonymity and resultant economic loss, when this writing was sent by the applicant. According to the learned AA.- G. Dispensation of justice was severely ridiculed and that was to create severe hatred which could result in disaffection among the people against the legal Governments of Center and Provinces.
9. Learned AA.-G. Relied upon many decisions, in which such crude attempts were held to be amounting to the creation of hatred and disaffection and, therefore, section 124-A was attracted.
10. Some of such cases are:--
(1) Bal Gandadhar Tilak v. Emperor SC 39 1&D Cas 807: 19 Bom. LR 211 p.567 of Cr.LJ Vol.18.
(2) State v. Sardar Attaullah Khan Mengal PLD 1967 SC 78.
11. ' Another argument of the learned AA.-G. Was that Special Court (S.TA.) was created under a special statute and section 10 of S.TA. Act had an overriding effect on Cr.P.C., therefore, the complaint was rightly instituted and no particular, form or method of filing of complaint was provided under S.TA. Act. Therefore, filing of complaint by the Home Secretary in the manner he did in this case, an the passing of the order by S.TA. Court ordering the case to be brought on file and issuing of N.B.Ws., did not suffer from any infirmity. Lastly, learned AA.-G. Stated that the offence was very grave as the entire judicial system, the Federal Government and the Provinces were assaulted and an attempt was made to show that the executive was overruling the judiciary and the words used against the judiciary were used purposely to create hatred and disaffection against the superior Courts of the Country and also against the Government at the Centre and the Provinces. Learned AA.-G. Stated that since a prima facie case has been made out against the applicant for which the maximum punishment provided by law was imprisonment for life, there was no grounds to release the applicant on bail.
12. ' We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. We do not want to go in in-depth discussion about the truth or falsity of the allegations leveled by the applicant in his writing, as this is only stage of bail, and we do not want to prejudice the trial Court from taking an independent decision of its own in the trial. Apparently offence under section 124-A is punishable for imprisonment for life, and therefore, the applicant, in order to succeed in his application for bail, has to show that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of such offence. The applicant has not been able to show lack of such grounds. We do not agree with the learned counsel for. The applicant, that the. Applicant was only making a prayer as a citizen, against his victimization. If it was so, there was no necessity to address this writing to the Presidents and the Prime Ministers of all the countries of the world. There can hardly be any cogent reason for the applicant who himself claims to be an Ex-M.N.A. And Chairman of District Council, to address the letter maligning the judiciary of the country and other organs of the State to the foreign heads of the States, Prime Ministers and Ambassadors, apart from getting the contents of letter published inside the country.
13. ' In the case of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, justice Bachelor has held that a Government established by law acts through human agency and admittedly civil service is its principal agency for the administration of the country. Therefore, when the civil service en bloc is maligned, the question whether disaffection against the Government is being excited or not, is a pure question of fact. The natural effect of the words, infusing hatred of the civil service, is also to infuse hatred or contempt of the established Government, whose accredited agent the civil servant is.
14. The object of section 124-A is, to prohibit the feelings which may be excited against the Government in a variety of ways. One of such ways is possibly to excite feelings by unfair condemnation of any of its services.
15. ' In the case of the State v. Sardar Attaullah Khan, it was observed by Cornelius, C.J., that the only question for the Court to decide in the case like one under section 124-A is to decide whether the effect of the language used is such that it is calculated to create in the minds of those, who see or hear it, a feeling of revolution towards the Government established by law, so strong as to amount to hatred or contempt, or in a still worse case where the hatred or contempt is so strong as to affect the allegiance of the public or a section thereof, in other words, producing "disaffection".
16. Therefore, we feel that the complainant has rightly considered the letter written by the applicant to be such which is likely to create hatred and disaffection and, therefore, has filed the complaint on behalf of the Government as its agent, and so its cognizance has also been taken by the Special Judge (S.TA.) correctly. Since the writing is admittedly sent by the applicant to the addressees, and also publicized in Press, we hold that the applicant has failed in showing that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that he was guilty of a non-boilable offence punishable with imprisonment for life.
17. ' Therefore, we do not find cogent reasons to allow this application. The request for bail of the applicant is, therefore, rejected.