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 Revision Application No. 97 of 1977, decided on 17th September, 1978.
------S. 14 read with S. 22-Security for good behaviour-Evidence against petitioner vague and particulars as to time and place regarding allegations that petitioner was concerned in two cases of pick pocketing not given-Held: No sufficient ground for ordering petitioner's detention under S. 14 of Act-Order set aside, in circumstances. [Security for good behaviour].
Madadally Shah for Respondent.
Nazir Alam for the State.
Date of hearing : 17th September, 1978.
This revision application under section 22 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 is directed against the order of Commissioner, Hyderabad Division passed in appeal from a final order under section 14 of the Tribunal and S. D. M., Math requiring the applicant to execute a bond of good behaviour for a period of two years in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
2. The proceedings were started on the report of S. H. O., Math Police. Station that the petitioner was a goonda and badmash who indulged in gambl ing and keeping a gambling den, committed theft and disposed of stolen property. The instances cited were that the petitioner committed pickpocketing in respect of Rs. 700 belonging to P. W. Waryam, and Rs. 150 belonging to P. W. Mohomed Soomar.
3. It has been argued by Syed Madadally Shah that the proceedings were started on insufficient basis and the final order is based on the evidence of three witnesses two of whom are on the point of pickpocketing while the third one has given evidence regarding the general reputation. Mr. Madad ally Shah pointed out that there are no previous convictions cited against the petitioner nor any cases in which he was sent up; that with regard to these two instances of pickpocketing there are no particulars of time and place and it is not known how the S. H. O. got private information about such instances. If he had known these instances of pickpocketing it would have been his duty to register these cases on behalf of the State, to investigate them and to send up the culprit. Apart from these two instances cited there is nothing else alleged against the petitioner and there is hardly any material to suggest that he was a goonda and a 6admash and dangerous and desperate person etc. Mr. Madadally Shah has quoted decisions mostly of this Court where even sending up of a person in a number of cases was found to be insufficient for coming to a conclusion that the person was by habit a thief or receiver of stolen property.
4. It is true that the evidence against the petitioner is vague and mere allegations that he was concerned in two cases of pickpocketing would not be sufficient for ordering his detention for a period of 2 years.
5. Mr. Nazir Alam for the State supports the revision petition and frankly states that the final order in a case of this nature cannot be maintained. The revision application is accordingly accepted and the order passed against the petitioner under section 14 of the Crimes Control Act requiring him to furnish sureties for good behaviour or in default to remain under detention for two years is hereby set aside. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bond is hereby discharged and he need not surrender.
Petition allowed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer