IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal No.319-L/2017 
(Against the judgment dated 26.10.2016 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in 
Criminal Appeal No.608/2015) 
 
Qari Muhammad Ishaq Ghazi 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State     
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
 
Rai Bashir Ahmad, ASC 
 
 
  
For the State: 
 
Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, DPG 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
27.6.2019. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Surprised on 
21.1.2015 by a contingent of Police Station A-Division Okara, Qari 
Muhammad Ishaq Ghazi, appellant herein, was found in 
possession of pamphlets, fraught with incendiary contents, 
calculated to incite hatred towards a particular sect; indicted 
before an Anti Terrorism Court at Lahore, he was convicted under 
Section 9 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to 5-years 
RI with fine of Rs.100,000/-, to be recovered as arrears of land 
revenue with benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1898 vide judgment dated 24-3-2015; his appeal in the 
High Court met with no better fate on 26-10-2016 vires whereof 
are being impugned through leave of the Court. The appeal came 
up before the Court after appellant's release in the wake of 
completion of sentence, however,  the learned counsel has opted to 
argue the case at full length with a view to vindicate his position.  
2. 
 
A multipronged tirade includes submissions, both on 
factual as well as legal aspects of the case; it ranges from denial, 
non-association of public witnesses as well as prosecution's failure 
to establish distribution of impugned material in the public, a sine 
Criminal Appeal No.319-L/2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
qua non, according to the learned counsel to attract the mischief of 
Section 9 ibid. 
3. 
 
Contents of the impugned pamphlets are repugnant and 
abhorrent to say the least; too nauseatic to be reproduced; capable 
of causing most grievous offence; these contravene all the limits of 
decency, an obligation sanctimoniously upheld by every faith.  
The argument that mere possession of the impugned material by 
itself would not attract the mischief of the section ibid, without 
actual distribution, is naively beside the mark. A plain reading of 
Section 9, unambiguously, suggests that possession of the 
inflammatory material by itself is an offence even before it is 
distributed; the legislature intended to nip the evil in the bud and 
rightly so given the inflammatory potential of the crime.  Arrested 
red-handed, objection over non-association of public witnesses to 
confirm the possession does not hold water either. Police officials, 
being functionaries of the State, are no less credible witnesses to 
drive home the charge in a milieu of pervasive apathy towards civic 
responsibilities; people prefer to recuse behind safety instead of 
coming forward in aid of justice. The officials who testified in the 
witness-box had seemingly no axe to grind, otherwise, found by us 
in a comfortable unison with one another. Police officials are as 
good witnesses as any other and their evidence is subject to same 
standard of proof and principles of scrutiny as applicable to any 
other category of witnesses; in the absence of any animus, 
infirmity or flaw in their depositions, their statements can be relied 
without demur. View taken by the Courts below, well within the 
remit of law, calls for no interference. Criminal Appeal fails. 
Dismissed. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
Lahore, the 
27th of June, 2019 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat Ali/* 
JUDGE 
 
