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 Suo Motu Revision No. 2 of 1975, decided on 29th April 1975.
‑‑‑S. 110‑Police report against respondent mainly containing allega tion regarding use of intoxicants and their sale to public but stating nothing about his commission of offences involving breach of peace or his being at large amounting to hazard to community‑‑‑Allegations, held, not covered by S. 110, Cr. P. C. and hence misconceived Proceedings quashed, in circumstances.
S. A. Hassan for Applicant.
Usman Ghana Rashid. Asstt. A. G. for the State.
Date of hearing s 29th April, 1975.
Applicant Maroof was originally detained by the Home Secretary, Government of Sind but the detention order being had the same was with drawn. Thereafter S. H. O., Risala Police Station made an application to the Assistant Commissioner & S. D. M. (Mr. Aftab Ahmad Qureshi), Karachi, stating that respondent Maroof was a habitual mischief‑monger and a habitual seller and smoker of charas, and since he was desperate and dangerous, he be bound down for good behaviour under section 110, Cr. P. C. The learned S. D. M. then passed an order under section 117(3), Cr. P. C. stating therein that he was satisfied from police report and the statement of the witnesses that the said Maroof was a habitual mischief‑monger and was involved in selling contraband intoxicants and was so dangerous that his remaining at large was hazardous to the community. The S. D. M. accordingly called upon the said Maroof to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties for good behaviour till the completion of the enquiry.
2. Since the sureties offered by Maroof were not accepted he filed a Misc. application under sections 439, 498 etc. praying that amount of surety be reduced and only one surety for reasonable amount may be accepted.
3. The matter came up before my learned brother A. H. Qureshi, J., who found that the allegations in the case did not attract application of the provisions of section l10, Cr. P. C. He, therefore, admitted the application as a sue motu revision against the orders passed by the S. D. M. under sections 112 and 117(3), Cr. P. C.
4. The report submitted by S. H. O., Risala dated 5‑12‑1974 contains the allegations that Maroof is a habitual smoker of charas and a seller of charas; that he was in the habit of abusing and assaulting people of his locality. The report, however, does neat say that he commits offence involving breach of the peace or he is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. The witnesses cited in the complaint are Ahmad, Muhammad Sabir Khan and Muhammad Shafi on the point that the respondent sells charas and also smokes charas. The remaining witnesses, namely, Excise Inspector Risala, Ahmad, Abdul Kadir and Sub‑Inspector Incharge Risala Police Station have been cited in respect of the general reputation of the respondent. Thus the main allegation against the respondent is regarding his use of intoxicants and their sale to the public. As this allegation does not come under the provisions of section 00, Cr. P. C. these proceedings appear to be misconceived.
5. Under the circumstances the proceedings are hereby quashed.
Proceedings quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer