P L D 2019 Balochistan 27
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, C.J. and Muhammad Ejaz Swati, J
INDEPENDENT MEDIA CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. through Muhammad Azhar
and 4 others ---Petitioners
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and Secretary Law,
Quetta and 9 ohters ---Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.229 of 2017, decided on 3rd December, 2018.
(a) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002) --
----S. 29(6) ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.154- --Constitutional petition for
quashing of FIR ---Media group--- Airing anti state programme ---First Informataion Report
registered against a media group, its owners, and hosts of a television programme ("the petitioners") ---Plea of petitioners that the issue of airing the television programme regarding
which FIR was lodged had already been dealt with by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority ("Authority") by imposing a fine on the media group, therefore, no further proceedings in form of an FIR could be lodged against them ---Validity ---Such contention
was not supported by any provision of law ---Decision of the Authority to impose a fine on
the media group on recommendations of Council for Complaints in exercise of powers under
S.29(6) of the Pakistan E lectronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 was for
violation of terms and conditions of licence ---No criminal liability of the petitioners was
dealt with by the Authority, thus, the FIR could not be quashed--- Constitutional petition was
disposed of accordingly.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 154 & 161---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9, 10A & 13--- Quashing of multiple
FIRs ---Multiple FIRs registered against the same accused persons for the same incident
containing similar allegations ---Question as to which of FIRs would hold the field--- Eight
different FIRs arising from the same act and containing the same facts and allegations were registered against a media group, its owners, and hosts of a television programme ("the petitioners") for airing a programme with an anti -state theme ---First Information Report
which was filed prior in time would hold the field and the subsequent reports for the same incident may be treated as statements recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C, as a piece of evidence in
support of the initial report ---Co-existence of the remaining FIRs not only amounted to abuse
of process of law, but was also contrary to the spirit of Arts.4, 9, 10A & 13 of the Constitution ---High Court directed that petitioners had to face trial only in that FIR which
was lodged prior in time and the remaining FIRs were to be quashed---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 154 & 161---Multiple FIRs for the same act/incident--- For one incident there should
be only one FIR ---During investigation, after the registration of the first FIR, the
investigating officer was duty bound to record the different version of same incident brought
into his notice by different persons, but not as a report, rather as statements recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C. in the same case ---No separate FIR had to he recorded when any different
version of the same incident was brought into the notice of the investigating officer.
Mst. Sughra Bibi v. The State: Human Rights Case No.10842 -P of 2018 ref.
Bahazad Haider for Petitioners.
Rauf Atta, Advocate General, Zahoor Ahmed Baloch Assistant Advocate General and
Ms. Noor Jehan Kahoor, Additional Prosecutor General for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd October , 2018
ORDER
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, C J .--This petition was filed with the facts that
petitioner No.1, Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Limited was license holder of channel
Geo News from the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), while
petitioner No.2 was Group Chief Executive Editor in Chief of Daily Jang, petitioner No.3
was the Chief Executive Officer of Geo TV Network, and petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 were the
hosts of current affairs programme Aaps Ki Baat. That on 20th January 2017 newspaper
Public Eye Islamabad published a news article relating to allotment of a piece of land in Lahore to General Retired Raheel Sharif. That this news was already telecasted on a number of channels, and was also discussed in the programme Aaps Ki B aat on 24th January 2017.
That rival media channel engineered a campaign against them (petitioners), only to create hype and to exploit the public sentiments
2. It was case of the petitioners that the channel runs by the petitioners was governed by
the Pak istan Electronic Media Regulatory
Authority Ordinance 2002 (PEMRA Ordinance 2002), thus any violation
of the terms of license have to be dealt thereunder. That a provision of
filing of a complaint before the Council of Complaints, which had already taken
cognizance of the matter, thus debarred any further proceedings, but on same set of
allegations FIR No. 24 of 2017 was registered on 24th January 2017 at Police Station Steel
Town Maleer Karachi followed by FIRs twelve (12) in numbers were registered all ov er
Pakistan, out of which eight (08) were registered in Balochistan. That the petitioners were nominated as accused in the referred to cases. That the reports were registered in different areas on different dates, thus factually not possible for them (peti tioners) to pursue the cases
and to assure their physical appearances, or to obtain the bail from the respective courts. That
the trial if held before different courts, and decisions given in contrary terms, would not only prejudice their rights but also v iolate the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 13 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (The Constitution). Registration of FIRs for a single coccurrence in different cities with identical facts were claimed to be in different cities
with identical facts were claimed in violation of Articles 4, 9, 10 -A, 13 to 16, 24 and 25 of
the Constitution. The maintainability of the cases so registered was objected while asserting
that the offences alleged were against the State, thus no court was emp owered to take
cognizance, unless the complaint lodged on order of the Government, Federal or Provincial. It was with reference to Sections 196 and 196- A Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
3. The petition was with the prayer:
"A. The Hon'ble Court may order that all 08 FIRs mentioned below or any other FIR that may not be in the knowledge of the Petitioners registered within the province of Balochistan containing allegations regarding the current affairs program 'Aaps Ki Baat' dated 24.01.2017 and for w hich the FIRST FIR in Police Station Steel Town
Malir Karachi has already been registered be quashed so that the Petitioners could take bail from one Court, join one investigation and be tried once in view of Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Repub lic of Pakistan, 1973.
S.
NO. FIR NO. SECTION POLICE
STATION PLACE
1 34/2017 6-2-2017 505/124 -
A/123 -A/ 121 -
A/153/34
P.P.C. City Sibbi Sibbi
2 07/2014 6-2-2017 120-B/123 -
A/124 -A/ 109/
34 P.P.C. 29- B
Telegraph Act,
6/7 ATA Deera Bugti Deera
Bugi
3 05/2017 7-2-2017 123-A/34
P.P.C. Taftan Chaghi
4 58/2017 7-2-2017 120-B/123 -
A/124 -A/
109/34 P.P.C. 6/7 ATA, 29 -B
Telegraph Act Hub City Lasbella
5 03/2017 60-2-2017 123-A/124 -A
P.P.C. Thaal
Khusdar Khuzdar
6 06/2017 8-2-2017 120-B/123 -
A/124 -A /153 -
A/109/34 P.P.C. 29 -B
Telegraph Act,
6/7 ATA Cith Qallat Qallat
7 23/2017 9-2-2017 121-A123 -
A/124 -A/
153/505 P.P.C. Gwadar Gwadar
8 25/2017 9-2-2017 120-B/123 -
A/124 -A/
109/34 P.P.C.
29-B Telegraph
Act, 7 ATA City
Chaman Qilah
Abdullah
B. That in the meanwhile, till the disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly restrain the Respondents/ law enforcing agencies working under the Respondent 1- 2
from taking any coercive action against the Petitioners on the basis of any FIRs
mentioned in Para 20 of the instant Petition or any other FIR that may be registered after filing of the instant petition with regard to the current affairs program 'Aaps Ki Baat' dated 24.01.2017.
C. That in view of the unique and unprecedented circumstances on the basis of which the instant petition is being filed, this Hon'ble Court may pass any other just and appropriate order that it may deem fit to do complete justice to the petitioners."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in repetition to the stance taken in the petition,
only added that after registration of first FIR it was incumbent on the Police either refuse to register the case, or on having knowledge about the actual facts cancelled the FIRs registered subsequently, but it was not done in complete negation of law. It was urged that the FIR
registered prior in time would proceed, while the subsequent have to be quashed. He pressed that on the stated principle only FIR No. 24 of 2017 Police Station Steel Town Maleer Karach i was to proceed, and there be a direction for quashment of subsequent reports. He
supported his assertion by placing reliance on:
Mahmood Yasir v. The State 2008 YLR Lahore 601
Rehmat Khan v. DG Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) PLD 2000 Karachi 181
Badar Alam Bacjiani v. The State through Chairman NAB 2010 PCr.LJ 1988
It was added by the learned counsel that the offence alleged against the petitioners
could only be dealt under the PEMRA Ordinance 2002, which was already done, and a decision was given by the Authority on 24th October 2017, thus further proceeding of the
matter surely amounted to double jeopardy, in contravention of Article 13 of the Constitution, which placed a bar on prosecution or punishment for same offence more tha n
once.
5. In reply the learned Advocate General was with the assertions that the petitioners
have already approached the Apex Court for the purpose, and decision awaited, thus the instant petition was not maintainable. It was contended that instead of inv oking constitutional
jurisdiction the trial court might have been applied either for quashment of the proceedings, or for pre -mature acquittal, which had not been done. That the Police Reports, pursuant to the
cases registered were already before the trial court, and the cognizance of the offence had
already been taken, in view when the cases were before the court of competent jurisdiction,
thus instead of filing the petition in hand they might have availed the remedy provided by Sections 265 -K and 249 -A Cr .P.C.
6. In the case in hand a program was telecasted on Geo News Channel on 24th January
2017, and the material aired resulted in starting of a campaign against the petitioners, stated to be an anti state activity, the act was claimed on part of rival TV Channels. This resulted in
initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. While at -least twelve (12)
reports were lodged at different places, out of which eight (08) were registered in different cities of Balochistan, details whereof narra ted in the preceding paras. It was evident that out
of these eight (08) three were registered on 6th February 2017, while the remaining were registered on 7th, 8th and 9th February 2017. All these reports were of same incident with identical facts. While the persons nominated were also the same. The cases though at present were before the courts, on receipt of the Police Reports, but the trial yet to commence for the reason of a restraint order, interim in nature, passed by this court on 13th March 2017. In view of the bar as contained in Article 13 of the Constitution the main question would be that what would be the legal course, and which of the cases would proceed in described state of facts. The petitioners appeared with the plea that at the most the fi rst FIR i.e. FIR No.24 of
2017 has to proceed, while there might be a direction for quashment of the remaining cases. As far the replies of the respondents were concerned, were of less help on the issue.
7. Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) deals with the r egistration of First Information
Report (FIR). Section 154 Cr.P.C, a specific provision, deals with the information of commission of a cognizable offence. This information is to be given to the Officer -in-Charge
of a Police Station, who has to reduce it in to writing in a book maintained for the purpose
duly signed by the complainant. The law set into action on receipt of such report, followed by the investigation as provided by Section 156 Cr.P.C. and onward, ended on submission of Report as required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. All this for an offence cognizable in nature. The object of registration of an FIR on receiving information about commission of an act constituting a cognizable offence to initiate criminal proceedings, but it no way means that the persons against whom allegations were levelled in fact guilty of the offences, which only
depends on investigation. The law made it obligatory on an Officer -in-Charge of Police
Station to record FIR if the information given constitute an offence cognizable in nat ure. The
law empowered such officer to investigate and to determine that whether the evidence is sufficient or insufficient and to adopt the course as contained in Sections 169 and 170 Cr.P.C. but in each case he has to submit final report as required by S ection 173 Cr.P.C. This
confer power to the Magistrate to adopt the course as provided by Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. or to deal with the case under Section 190 Cr.P.C. In addition the material collected during course of investigation though become part of the Police Report, but there will be no addition in contents of FIR, which is only the initial report recorded to initiation of the proceedings. Rather, the material collected subsequently is always in furtherance of the initial report.
8. The petitioner press ed that the act for which they have been nominated as accused
have already been dealt under the provisions of PEMRA Ordinance 2002, thus no further proceedings could be held against them, not supported by any provision of law. The decision of the Authority dated 25th October 2017 on recommendations of Council for Complaints
(Karachi and Lahore) imposed fine on Geo News in exercise of powers under Section 29 (6)
PEMRA Ordinance 2002. It was for violation of terms and conditions of license. No criminal liabil ity was dealt by the Authority.
9. The only question before this court is that which of the FIR would hold the field and
the petitioners have to face the trial therein. Without going into merit of the case the procedure as provided under Chapter XIII of the Code is to be adopted and for one offence there might be only one trial, an established principle. In the case in hand FIRs though stated to be twelve in numbers for the same act alleged on part of the petitioners. The program was aired on 24th January 2017, while the FIRs against them, registered in different cities of Balochistan, in month of February 2017. First Information Report No.24 of 2017 Police Station Steel Town Maleer Karachi was registered on 28th January 2017, though prior in time, but this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to this extent. As far the areas lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this court the reports registered not only could be considered, but an appropriate order could have been passed. By virtue of Section 185 Cr.P .C. a High Court is
duly empowered to determine the court which ought to enquire into or try any offence. Subsection (2) of the Section 185 Cr.P.C. though with a wider power to decide the court dealing with same offence, but the condition precedent is that if two or more courts have
taken cognizance of same offence, the proceedings where commenced first may be directed to try such case. In case in hand no decision can be given to the effect due to lack of material, as nothing placed before the court from which it could be determined that in which case the proceedings have been commenced.
10. Apart from the described legal position the question still remains that which of the
case shall proceed as the main request of the petitioners restricted to the extent o f trial in one
case and quashment of the remaining FIRs. A safeguard provided by the Constitution and also by the law that a person might not face prosecution and punishment for same offence more than once, thus in view of the principle, as there is nothing before us from which it could be determined that trial had been commenced in any case, thus the report which was filed prior in time will hold the field and the subsequent reports for the same incident may be treated as statement recorded under Section 1 61 Cr.P.C, a piece of evidence in support of the
initial report. The Constitution guaranteed fair trial, while fair investigation of a case also a right assured. In view the subsequent reports always treated in furtherance of FIR reported prior in time. It is by now an established principle that for one incident there might be only
one FIR, while during investigation, after the registration, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to record the different version of same incident brought into his notice by different persons, but not as a report, rather as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the same case. No separate FIR has to be recorded when any different version of the same incident brought into the notice of the Investigating Officer. It has been decided by the
honorable Supreme Court in its judgment dated 23rd May 2018 in Human Rights Case No.10842- P of 2018 Mst Sughra Bibi v. The State. Thus by now it has been settled that there
will be no counter version except one FIR for one incident. The Investigating Officer is duty bound to submit the Police Report with the purview of Section 173 Cr.P.C, with the true facts, irrespective of the information given by the first informant, or during investigation any other version brought to his notice by any other person.
11. If assessed on the principle as determined by the honorable Supreme Court the FIRs,
eight (08) in numbers, arise from same incident, though registered on different dates on
complaints of different persons, but the persons nominated we re the same, for the act
common in nature. Though the Police duly empowered to seek for cancellation of cases on strength of Rule 24:7 of the Police Rules 1934, but this power was not exercised at the
relevant time. It resulted in registration of eight FIR s with the numbers 3 of 2017 Police
Station Thaal Khuzdar, 5 of 2017 Police Station Taftan, 6 of 2017 Police Station City Kalat,
7 of 2017 Police Station Dera Bugti, 23 of 2017 Police Station Gwadar, 25 of 2017 Police Station City Chaman, 34 of 2017 Police Station City Sibi, and 58 of 2017 Police Station Hub
City with identical facts and acts on part of the persons named.
12. As discussed above in view of the determined principle out of eight FIRs the FIR
lodged prior in time i.e. FIR No. 3 of 2017 Police S tation Thaal Khuzdar shall remain intact
and shall proceed, while the remaining are to be quashed. It is for the reasons that co-existence of the remaining FIRs not only amount to abuse of process of law, but also contrary to the spirit of Article 13 of th e Constitution. It further affect the rights as
guaranteed by the Articles 4, 9, and 10A of the Constitution, thus not sustainable. Resultantly the petitioners have to face the trial in FIR No.3 of 2017 Police Station Thaal Khuzdar in accordance with the L aw. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
MWA/1/Bal. Order accordinglThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.