Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 341 of 1969, decided on 14th September 1970.
Ss. 107 & 112-Security proceedings--Applicants required-'to show cause why they should not be bound down for one year-Continuation of 'proceedings beyond such period-Not barred-Period to commence from date of final order-Such proceedings, require immediate conclusion-Continuation for long period; held, futile.
State v. Hyder Bui P L D-1963 Kar. 673 rel.
S. Nasiruddin for Appellants.
Usman Ghani for the State.
Date of hearing : 14th September 1970.
This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 341,and 342 of 1969. In both these applications the petitioners have applied to the Court for quashment of proceedings against them pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrates, New Town and Old Town under section 107, Cr. P. C. The proceed ings were initiated upon two reports submitted by the police of different, police stations. The reports according to the learned counsel for the parties were submitted on the 2nd of June 1969 in the Court of S. D. M., New Town while in the Court of S. D. M., Old Town on the 14th of June 1969. In the first case the learned S. D. M., New Town ordered registration of the case and directed summons and notice under section 112, Cr. P. C. to issue against the petitioner and in the second case summons and notice were ordered to issue on the 13th of August 1969. In each of the two notices under section 112, Cr. P. C. the petitioners were re quired to show cause why they should not be bound down for a period of one year. Thereafter, the petitioners applied to this Court for the quashment of these proceedings and on 3rd of October 1969, the petitions were admitted to regular hearing and proceedings in the Courts below were stayed". I have noticed that two parallel proceedings were initiated upon the same reports to achieve the same result. I have not been able to understand the expediency of these two parallel proceedings. One such pro ceeding should have achieved the same result. Under the circumstances there is an impression of unnecessary zeal in commencing parallel proceedings. Moreover, the learned counsel for the State and the petitioners have stated that proceedings in the Courts below have become infructuous as more than a year has elapsed since the issue of the notice under section 112, Cr. P. C. wherein the petitioners were required to show cause as to why they should not be bound down for a period of one year. There is no legal bar in the continuation of the proceedings as the period specified in the notice is the one for which the petitioners would be required to furnish security in case the final order was passed against them under section 118, Cr. P. C. However, upon the ground of futility of the proceedings which require immediate conclusion, that contention has substance: In State v. Hyder Bux (P L D 1963 Kar. 673) a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi. Seat as it then was, quashed the proceedings, where the delay was of some 16 or 17 months, though the petitioner in that case was required to show cause why he should not be bound down for a period of one year.
2. Respectfully following the above view and for the reasons given above I would quash the proceeding and accept the peti tions.
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer