AMIR ALAM KHAN, J.--This order shall dispose of I.C.As. Nos.344, 380, 395, 402 and 693 of 2000, as they arise out of the various orders passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court on identical subject-matter, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed.
2. The appellants in the appeals afore-noted are either Anjuman Prize Bond Dealers or individual dealers of the prize bonds, who had proceeded to challenge the Government of Punjab Circular No,SO(CR&A) 1/9/99, dated 19-4-1999 issued by the Home Department thereby addressing all the Divisional Commissioners, all Range Deputy Inspectors-General of. Police, all Deputy Commissioners and all District Superintendents of Police in the Province of Punjab thereby intimating the aforesaid officers that it has come to the notice of the Government that in the garb of prize bond business gambling in the form of 'Parchi' system is being carried on by various persons, which is an illegal activity. Consequently the said officers were called upon to take action against those indulging in the illegal activity of gambling through 'Parchi' system. Based whereupon a direction was also sought that the respondents be directed to refrain from interfering and closing down the business of the appellants in any manner whatsoever as also in violation of Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
3. The challenge aforestated as also the mandamus as prayed for has been made and asked with the assertions that the appellants are running a lawful trade of the sale of prize bonds and prize bond numbers which is not opposed to any law for the time being in force and that the appellafits have vested right under Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to acquire and carry on any lawful trade and business, while the respondents, in furtherance of letter afore- referred have started to interfere in the lawful business of the appellants and have also gone to the extent of forcibly closing down the same. It is also the case of the appellants that the business being undertaken by them cannot constitute gambling so as to bring it within the purview of the Prevention of Gambling Act, 1977. The Anjuman Prize Bond Dealers had also filed writ petitions in the representative capacity for it is claimed that as per the charter of the said Anjuman it is its duty to look after the welfare and interest of the prize bond dealers in the city or the province as the case may be The other writ petitions proceeded on somewhat similar grounds. The said writ petitions were dismissed by different learned Single Judges of this Court mainly on the ground that certain questions of fact were involved such as issuance of 'Parchi' system, which cannot be determined in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and that remedy of filing a representation before the Home Secretary being available, the matter can well be adjudicated before the said forum. In another case it was observed that the gambling is going on in the garb of 'Parchi' system and since it is not shown that prize bond dealer in the particular case is possessed of any licence to deal with the prize bonds, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The orders afore-referred have been challenged in the present IntraCourt Appeals.
5. Before us, it was maintained by Mr.Shahzad Shaukat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that buying and selling of the prize bonds is not prohibited under the law rather it is considered to be a legal tender for its face value. He also explained as to what is meant by 'Parchi' system by contending that certain persons being not able to pay the total price of the prize bond are still willing to take advantage of the prizes offered by the Government, therefore, the said persons are allowed to pay a fraction of the price of the face value of the prize bonds and are allowed to participate in the draws conducted by the State Bank of Pakistan resultantly if the number of prize bond comes out in the draws, they are paid the share from the prize awarded by the State Bank and that it is not gambling in any case. He also relied on Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to contend that every citizen has a vested right to enter into any lawful profession or occupation or to conduct any lawful trade or business. In amplification of the argument it was submitted that the prize bonds are issued, sold and bought under the authority of the Government with the promise that the prize shall also be awarded to the holders of certain prize bonds the number whereof would come out in the draws conducted under the authority of the State Bank. He has also relied on Ghulam Haider and 7 others v. Station House Officer, City Police Station, Quetta and 9 others PLD 1988 Quetta 52, Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and another v. Zamir Ahmed Khan PLD 1975 SC 667 and a case from Indian jurisdiction i,e, Krishan Kumar Narula v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others AIR 1967 SC 1368. It was submitted that the process of 'Parchi' system cannot be termed as gambling nor could it be treated as an unlawful business, therefore, the letter issued by the Home Department of the Government of Punjab is without jurisdiction, hence a direction that all the officers named in the said letter be restrained from interfering in the lawful business of the appellants.
6. The questions for determination in the present appeals are as to whether the process of 'Parchi' system as explained above tantamounts to gambling, wagering or immoral or opposed to public policy. It is no doubt correct that Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, guarantees to every citizen a right to enter into any lawful profession or occupation or to conduct any lawful trade or business, intrinsically it is to be seen as to whether the business or the trade being conducted by the appellants is at all lawful for the words "trade or business" are pre-fixed with the word "lawful". The 'Parchi' system as explained by the learned counsel for the appellants is nothing but a wagering contract between a citizen and the dealer. The wagering contract has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) as follows:-- "Wagering contract.--One in which the parties stipulate that they shall gain or lose, upon the happening of an uncertain event, in which they have no interest except that arising from the possibility of such gain or loss."
' Again the wager has been defined as under:-- "Wager.--A contract by which two or more parties agree that a certain sum of money or other thing shall be paid or delivered to one of them or that they shall gain or lose on the happening of an uncertain event or upon the ascertainment of a fact in dispute, where the parties have no interest in the event except that arising from the possibility of such gain or loss. The word 'wagering' is practically synonymous with the words betting and gambling, and the terms are so used in common parlance and in statutory and constitutional enactments."
7. In the instant case a 'Parchi' is issued to a citizen, who does not come to possess the prize bond itself, with the promise that he shall also be entitled to the prize, if any, corresponding with the amount invested by him. This promise itself is not backed by any law nor any licence has been granted by the Government for the prize bond as issued by the State Bank is backed by the guarantee issued by the State Bank that the holder of the same shall be paid the prize if the number thereof would come out in the draw. Again in the 'Parchi' it is only the number, which is given to the buyer of the 'Parchi' for which he would not know as to whether the prize bond of such a number is available with him or that such a number has, already been declared in the previous draws and above all the dealers issuing the 'Parchis' may be issuing the same for a value, which may exceed the face value of the prize bond and then the whole business of issuing 'parchi' with a promise to pay the prize is dependent upon the happening of an uncertain event in which the contracting parties have no interest except that arising from the possibility of such gain or loss.
Manifestly it is a wagering contract with no backing of law, therefore, the same could not be placed with the discretion of the Court. Needless to add here that the wagering contract is practically synonymous with the words betting and gambling and the terms are so used in common parlance, therefore, it is definitely unlawful and cannot be termed lawful trade or business. The reliance of learned counsel for the appellants on the case of Ghulam Haider noted supra is not very apt for the rule in the said case was laid down while adopting the reasoning in the other case i,e, Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and another v. Zamir Ahmed Khan noted supra, which reasoning was reproduced in extenso at page 59 of the said precedent, which is instructive and may be reproduced hereunder for the wisdom thereof:- "Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1972 which relates to the freedom of trade, business or profession, which corresponds to Article 15 of the 1972 Constitution, and which incidentally held the field at the relevant time, assures the citizens the right to enter upon any 'lawful profession or occupation' and 'to conduct any lawful trade or business'. It is important to point out that the word 'lawful' qualifies the right of the citizen in the rdlevant field. This clearly envisages that the State can by law ban a profession, occupation, trade or business by declaring it to be unlawful which in common parlance means anything forbidden by law. Prostitution, trafficking in women, gambling, trade in narcotics or dangerous drugs are common place instances of unlawful profession or trade. These are inherently dangerous to public health or welfare. Therefore, on the wording of Article 18 of the Constitution, the right to enter upon a profession or occupation be a Constitutional or fundamental right when such right may be denied by law. In this respect our Constitution stands in sharp contrast with the corresponding provision of the Indian Constitution which omits the use of word 'lawful' in the relevant provision." Similarly the ratio of the case from the Indian jurisdiction cannot be applied in the present case for the abovesaid case relates to sale of liquor where no wagering is involved. Additionally section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 deals with the agreement the consideration or object of which is lawful unless-- "it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injuring to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void."
It would be noted that the provision afore-noted speaks of two eventualities. If the agreement is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provision of any law. As already held the agreement between the contracting parties is that of wagering, which is synonymous with betting or gambling, therefore, if the same is allowed to be entered into and given effect, the consideration or the object of the said agreement would be unlawful, which in turn would become void. Secondly while section 23 of the Contract Act provides for reaching an agreement as also regulating the rights and obligations arising therefrom, it also vests the Court with the jurisdiction and discretion to regard any agreement as immoral or opposed to the public policy. It has already been held that the agreements entered into and, concluded through 'Parchi' system are wagering agreements, which tantamount to betting or gambling, but apart therefrom the said agreements, in our considered opinion, are not only immoral but also opposed to the public policy for it would be unjust and unfair to leave the people in the bands of unwary prize bond dealers, who have established their business without the backing of any law as also without any licence thereby regulating their affairs such as issuance of 'Parchis' etc. The citizens cannot also be made prey of the dealers, who have devised system thereby entrapping innocent citizens in the false hopes of getting prizes. As far the argument that the prize bonds as issued by the State Bank of Pakistan as also the sale and purchase of the prize bonds are not prohibited, therefore, the 'Parchi' system should also not be prohibited, suffice it to observe here that the sale and purchase of prize bonds are backed by guarantee of the State and so is the case about the prizes while in the case of dealers in the prize bonds no such guarantee exists with the result that they are free to go back on their promise and the grievance of the 'Parchi' holders cannot be redressed in a Court of law for no wagering contract can he enforced in a Court of law.
8. For the reasons aforestated, these appeals are found to be meritless, therefore, the same are dismissed.