Acquitting journalist Farhan Mallick in a case pertaining to allegedly uploading anti-state content on his YouTube channel, a judicial magistrate has observed that the prosecution failed to point out “any specific allegation in such alleged video which can be termed as anti-state and was used to harm/damage the reputation of any individual”.
Mallick through his lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii had moved an application before Judicial Magistrate (East) Gulraiz Memon, seeking his acquittal under Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
After hearing the defence lawyer and FIA prosecutor Sheraz Rajpar, the magistrate acquitted the journalist in the case. “It is well settled principle that this Court can recourse to the powers enshrined under section 249-A Cr.P.C at any stage, if it appears after delving deeply through the record that the case would ultimately lead to acquittal of the accused, just to save the rigors of trail,” he observed in his written order.
He said that NCCIA technical assistant Irfan Mehar testified that on November 7, 2024, he found a YouTube channel under the title of ‘Raftar TV’, where a video with a tag line #zillatrepublicofpakistan was seen and he found such tag line being anti-state and reported it for inquiry.
“However, during cross-examination he further explained that such video was about a rush outside the NADRA office yet he could not explain during his evidence that how such video can be termed against the state or any of the dignitaries,” the order noted.
Through an amendment, it said that Section 26-A (punishment for false and fake information) was inserted in the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016. “The above section was inserted in 2025 and per technical analysis he saw an alleged video in the month of November 2024 when such law/ section was not even law of land,” it added.
The magistrate said: “Furthermore, the prosecution has not only failed to bring substance against accused but also had not provide any specific allegation in such alleged video which can be termed as anti-state and was used to harm/damage the reputation of any individual. This has certainly put a dent in the prosecution case.”
He said that in the present case, the absence of a private complainant and the lack of evidence against the accused strengthened the presumption of his innocence. “Moreover, the instant FIR the prosecution could not point out any person who had been victim/affected by such post/tweet, in the absence of a private complainant claiming any loss or incident involving the accused is a critical factor.”
Mallick was arrested by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) on March 20. He was later released on bail.
The FIA had booked him under sections 16 (unauthorised use of identity information), 20 (offences against dignity of a natural person) and 26-A of Peca 2016, read with 109 (abetment) of the Pakistan Penal Code.
