ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.- Through this Constitutional petition the petitioners have sought quashment of F.I.R. No. 55 registered at Police Station Naushera, District Khushab on 29.5.2000 for an offence under Section 18 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. The allegation against the petitioners and their co-accused is that they were watching a blue film in the baithak of one Rab Nawaz in village Mardwal, Tehsil and District Khushab on 29.5.2000 when they were surprised by a raiding party of the local police whereupon the offensive film along with the television set and a V.C.R, were taken into possession by the police and, thus, some of the accused persons were apprehended at the spot.
2. In support of this petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there had been a clear violation of the provisions of Section 8(5) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 in this case as the raid in question had been conducted by an Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police and that there was no prior report in that regard by the Censor Board or an authorized person of the said Board or even by the District Magistrate. In this connection it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 such a raid could only have been conducted by a police officer hot below the rank of an Inspector and also that such raid could only have been conducted pursuant to a report in writing made by the Censor Board or by a person authorized by it or under the order of the District Magistrate. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the raid in question had violated the petitioners' Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution regarding privacy. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the case of Riaz Vs. Station House Officer, Police Station Jhang City and 2 others (PLD 1998 Lahore 35). The learned counsel for the petitioners has further supported this contention with reference to the Islamic rights regarding privacy and in that context he has relied upon the cases of Manzoor Ahmad Vs. The State (1990 Law Notes (Lahore) 563), Mst. Nusrat Mai Vs. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J. 2034), Muhammad Mehmood Ahmad Vs. The State (1995 P.Cr.L.J. 444) and Muhammad Bilal and another Vs. Superintendent of Police, Dera Ghazi Khan and another (PLD 1999 Lahore 297).
It has lastly been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that mere watching of a blue film does not per se attract the provisions of Section 18 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 and, thus, the said activity does not constitute any offence under the said Ordinance. In this regard reliance has been placed on the case of Allah Bachaya Vs. The State (PLD 1990 Lahore 499). With these submissions the learned counsel, for the petitioners has canvassed that the above- mentioned F.I.R. No. 55 registered at Police Station Naushera, District Khushab may be quashed by this Court.
3. As against that the learned counsel for the respondents has maintained that there is no cavil with the submissions and propositions. Advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as the same are supported by various judgments rendered by the superior Courts of this country but it may be borne in my mind that the investigation of this case has already been concluded and a report in that regard is about to be submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction with a written complaint by the District Magistrate, Khushab in respect of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners and their co-accused. He has, thus, maintained that it shall be proper for the petitioners to await submission of such a report and complaint so as to approach the learned trial Court with an application under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C, at an appropriate stage. The thrust of the submissions made by the- learned counsel for the State, therefore, has been regarding the stage of the proceedings rather than the correctness of the submissions and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and' going through the record it may straightaway be observed that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners have a lot of substance and the same are well-supported by different judgments rendered by the superior Courts of the country. The raid in question had indeed been conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Police and not .By an Inspector. It is again not disputed that the said raid had been conducted without there being any prior report in that regard by the Censor Board or any person authorized by it or even by a District Magistrate. Thus, the raid in issue was conducted Clearly in violation of the mandatory provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. Although the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution subjects the right of privacy to law but the law contained in the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 clearly bridles the exercise of jurisdiction by the police in many ways. Any transgression of the limits prescribed by the law regarding a raid in this regard would surely be illegal in itself and, therefore, the eclipsing part of the Fundamental Right of privacy guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution would in such a situation become in operative. In some of the precedent cases mentioned above it has been categorically held that under the Islamic dispensation the activity of peeping toms or intruders of privacy of home are not to be encouraged. 1u some of the cases mentioned above peeping toms who had seen an alleged activity of commission of Zina had not been relied upon in support of such an allegation because their conduct was found to be offensive to Islamic social morality. If witnessing commission of Zina through such a method was not encouraged in such precedent cases then an alleged witnessing of an activity of watching a film about sexual intercourse through such a clandestine method is surely twice removed from permissibility or acceptability. For such situations this Court cannot help remark that such an unwarranted invasion of a citizen's privacy is not to be encouraged and the administrative authorities and the police ought to be discouraged from embarking upon such an intrusion into a citizen's privacy except where they are specifically authorized to do the same after fulfilling all the requisite formalities prescribed for the same by the relevant law. There is also a lot of substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that mere witnessing or watching of such an offensive film does not per se attract the provisions of Section 18 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. Such a witnessing or watching of a film is surely distinguishable from exhibition of a film which is a completely distinct activity.
5. Adverting now to the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents suffice it to observe that although the investigation of this case might have been completed the investigation of this case might have been completed yet admittedly the necessary complaint or a report in that regard have not so far been submitted by the District Magistrate, Khushab before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In this state of the admitted position the petitioners cannot be left to lurk in limbo and their fate cannot be left at the mercy of the executive authorities especially when, as already observed above, the allegation against the petitioners or the raid conducted in that regard were violative of the relevant law besides being offensive to the Constitutional rights of (he petitioners as well as the Islamic social morality. The activity wherein the petitioners' had allegedly indulged may be morally reprehensible but a violation of their Constitutional and legal rights in that regard was even more dangerous and condemnable. This Court would, therefore, be failing in its Constitutional responsibility if it does not step-in for shielding the Constitutional and legal rights of the citizens caught-up in a situation like this.
6. For what has been observed above this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 55 registered at Police Station, Naushera, District Khushab on 29.5.2000 for an offence under Section 18 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.