Find a Lawyer

‑‑ S. 8(3)(b) read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A Quashment of proceedings‑Petitioner reported to ‑ be running a den of contraband charas and selling it at various places‑Such report not containing particulars of acts of petitioner nor showing his general repute‑A solitary case under Abkari Act pending adjudication, held, cannot be made basis for adverse repute of petitioner‑Order under S. 8 (3) (b) of Act 1975, being without holding proper enquiry, held further, cannot be considered for calling upon petitioner to furnish interim security‑Proceedings quashed, in circumstances.‑ [Quashment of proceedings].

Muhammad Ali Sheikh for Applicant.

Nooruddin Sarki for the State.

Date of hearing : 6th February 1978.

This is a revision application under section 22(2) of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 against the order of Commissioner, Hyderabad Division dismissing the appeal of the petitioner arising from the proceedings started against him by S. D. M. and Tribunal, Kotri.

2. The facts in brief arc that S. H. O. Kotri Police Station made a report to the Tribunal under section 14(4) of the Act that the petitioner was running a den of charas and selling charas at various places. The learned S. D. M. passed an order under section 8 (1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety to be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years. By another order the learned .S. D. M. and Tribunal acting under section 8(3)(b) detained the petitioner for failure to furnish interim security.

3. An appeal was preferred against these orders of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division but the same was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could not explain why the police was inimical to him and the Tribunal had acted on the material placed before it by the police.

4. Mr. Muhammad Ali Sheikh on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the report of S. H. O., Kotri on which the proceedings have been started contains merely vague allegations that the petitioner is running a den of charas and he is selling charas at various places. Only one instance has been mentioned of a case under section 43(3), Abkari Act which has been sent up against the petitioner and is yet pending. Mr. Muhammad Ali Sheikh has accordingly argued that the report being in vague terms, it could not form the basis for starting proceedings against the petitioner under the Crimes Control Act.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is based on the wordings of section 6 of Sind Crimes Control Act. Under the proviso to that section the police report shall state firstly the acts with which the person complained against is charged, secondly the details of time and place of such acts and thirdly the general repute of the person complained against showing the substance of allegations against him. In the present report it is only mentioned that he is running a den of charas and selling charps at various places. It has not even been shown as to where and at what place this den of rharas is situated. It has not been alleged if the petitioner had been found at any time selling charas at any place. The proceedings under the Crimes Control Act, 1975, are preventive proceedings curtailing the liberty of a subject. The provisions of law in respect of these proceedings as contained in the Crimes Control Act must, therefore, he strictly construed. Any laxity in this behalf is bound to vitiate the proceedings. It is an admitted fact that the report in question does not contain any particulars or details of the acts with time and place of such acts: nor does it show the general repute of the petitioner.

6. Regarding the general repute the evidence should consist of respect able persons of the locality who should form that opinion on the strength of continuous course of conduct or behaviour of the petitioner. In other words there should be so many instances or complaints of this nature from the inhabitants of the locality that it should show that the person complained against does not have good reputation in that area. In the present complaint or police report there are no instances from which any such inference can be drawn and, the witnesses cited besides the S. H. O. are the A. S. I. and two persons regarding whom there is no mention of their addresses or profession, They might as well be the persons who generally assist police in these prosecutions.

7. It has also rightly been pointed out that in this case a single case against the petitioner under section 43(3) of the Abkari Act has been mention ed in the report. This case is still pending in Court. No adverse inference can, therefore, be drawn just. because the petitioner has been sent up in a single case of this nature. These proceedings are not meant to be made use of so that if the case for the substantive offence against the petitioner fails, he could still be detained under these proceedings.

8. The orders under section 8(3)(%,) have also been passed in this case without any enquiry ostensibly on the report filed by the S. H. O. When this report cannot form the basis of the proceedings, it can hardly be con sidered as sufficient for calling upon the petitioner to furnish interim security under section 8(3)(h). Time and again it has been laid down as a general principle of law, that interim detention of persons proceeded against should not be ordered without holding a proper enquiry in this respect. This order has been passed without any enquiry and not even a single witness has been examined in support of these allegations.

9. Mr. Noorudin Sarki on behalf of the State frankly eoncedes that he can neither support the order under section 8(3)(b) nor the proceedings which were started on insufficient grounds.

10. For the reasons stated above, the proceedings and the orders are hereby quashed.

Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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