Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. 651 of 1976, decided on 15th April 1977.

‑‑ Ss. 5 & 6‑Quashment of proceedings‑Proceedings initiated against petitioner based on Police report containing no particulars or time and place of acts alleged against him nor such report accompanied by copies of F. I. Rs. or copies of complaints made against him by residents of locality‑Proceedings, held, initiated in disregard of provisions contained in Ss. 5 & 6 and suffered from lacuna‑Proceedings quashed, in circumstances.‑[Quashment of proceedings].

C. P. No. 481 of 1975 rel.

S. Nasiruddin for Petitioner.

Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Addl. A. G. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th April 1977.

‑--This constitutional petition is directed against the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), by the District Magistrate South who is the Tribunal constituted under the said Act, upon a report dated 1-8‑1976, made by the S. H. O., Baghdadi Police Station, against the petitioner. In that report the following five types of allegations have been made against the petitioner:

(i) That he has a bad reputation in the locality, deals in selling of narcotics assaults the general public and has an active bad character.

(ii) That he had been involved in 10 criminal cases, details whereof have been given in the report.

(iii) That he was declared a dangerous disorderly person under the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, and was externed from Karachi.

(iv) That he was detained in the Central Prison of Karachi for a period of 3 months from 4th November 1974.

(v) That complaints have been received from the residents of Miran Pir, Lyari Quarters, against the petitioner and his son on 16‑6‑1976.

2. Now, so far as the 10 criminal cases in which the petitioner is said to have been involved, the police report itself shows that he was discharged in all of them excepting two cases under the Abkari Act and 1 case under section 294, P. P. C. in which he was convicted. The cases under the Abkari Act are of the year 1964 while the case under section 294, P. P. C. ‑was of the year 1966. In none of these three cases in which the petitioner was convicted has the first information reports or the judgments been produced before us or even the Tribunal. In the absence of these first information reports it is not possible to state whether there is any nexus whatsoever between these convictions and any of the clauses of section 14 of the said Ordinance. Section 294, P. P. C., under which the petitioner was convicted in 1966, punishes an obscene act, but such an act has not been brought within the ambit of section 14 of the said Act and hence no proceedings can be initiated against the person for doing such an act. Of course, if a person frequents hospitals, nursing homes, or any educational institution for immoral purposes or to cause annoyance to the inmates or visitors of such institutions, action could be taken against him under the said Act, but such acts are distinct from the obscene acts envisaged under section 294, P. P. C. Similarly, it is not known whether the Abkari offences for which the petitioner was convicted fall within the mischief of any of the clauses of section 14 of the said Act.

3. So far as the allegation in the police report against the petitioner is concerned that he was declared a dangerous disorderly person and for this reason he was externed from Karachi, Syed Nasiruddin has referred us to the decision reported in 1968 P Cr. L J 1910, where the order passed by the Tribunal against the petitioner was set aside and the proceedings instituted by it were held to be illegal.

4. The report also does not show as to what were the grounds on which the petitioner was detained from November 1974. Similarly, the report does not disclose the nature of the complaints, which are said to have been made against him and his son by the residents of his locality.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further assailed the proceedings instituted against the petitioner by the respondent on the ground that the mandatory provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the said Act have not been complied with and submitted that any proceedings which are taken in violation of the provisions of the said section are without lawful authority.

6. The learned Additional Advocate‑General conceded that the report submitted by the police against the petitioner did not contain as required by section 6 of the said Act, the particulars or the time and place of the acts alleged against him, nor is the report accompanied by the copies of the F. I. R. or the copies of the complaint made against him by his neighbours: He submitted that in view of this lacuna, and by reason of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in C. P. No. 481/75, on a similar point he is unable to support the proceedings which have been taken against the petitioner. We are in‑ respectful agreement with the decision given in the above constitutional petition.

7. For the reasons stated by us above, we are of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Tribunal against the petitioner are without lawful authority. We would accordingly quash the same and allow the petition. In, view of the very fair statement made by the learned Additional Advocate‑General, we would make no order as to costs.

Petition allowed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.