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.
Constitutional Petition No. D‑1951 of 1979, decided on 4th May 1980.
----Ss. 4 & 14 read with Ss. 5 & 6‑Quashment of proceedings‑No detailed particulars of time and place in respect of vague allegations, made against petitioner in police complaint, furnished‑Only details disclosing in. report relating to isolated incidents upon which petitioner sent up but acquitted of charge under West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) while only other charge of theft still pending trial‑ ‑‑Proceedings drawn up against accused, held, unsustainable in law‑‑‑‑Proceedings quashed, in circumstances.[Quashment of proceedings]. ,
Uris v. Tribunal & S. D. M. Kotery P L D 1977 Kar. 506 and Aftab Alam v. Tribunal & A. C. & S. D. M. (Central) P L D 1978 Kar. 305 rel.
Abdul Jabbar for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ibrahim, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 4th May, 1980.
Upon the report under section 4/14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the respondent No. 1 has taken cognizance and initiated proceedings against the petitioner. On the same day when cognizance was taken the learned Tribunal upon an application from the complainant S. H. O., Latifabad ordered issue of non‑bailable warrants against the petitioner without assigning reasons as required by the proviso to section 5 of the Act.
2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings by this Constitu tional petition as having been taken without lawful authority and being of no legal effect. The report contains the allegation that the petitioner is a thief, harbourer of thieves, disposes of stolen property, obtains "Hush‑money" and moves about armed with deadly weapons etc. The report also refers to two cases, one under section 380/457, P. P. C. and the other under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance.
3. The petitioner alleges that he was serving as an employee with a poultry farm at Hyderabad and had developed differences with his employers over the payment of the arrears of his salary. He was therefore falsely implicated in a theft case with an allegation that he was armed with a knife at the time of the alleged incident. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been acquitted in the case under the Arms Ordinance and the case under section 380/457, P. P. C. is still pending trial.
4. It is forcefully contended on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint on which cognizance has been taken by the learned Tribunal besides being palpably mala fides, is in total violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act. Section 6 of the Act provides that the report shall briefly state, besides the acts with which the person complained against is charged, the details of time and place of acts. It was thus held in Uris v. Tribunal & S. D. M., Koter). (P L D 1977 Kar.606) and in Aftab Alam v. Tribunal and A. C. & S. D. M. (Central) (P L D 1978 Kar.305) that the complaint which does not satisfy the requirements of section 6 by not furnishing particulars of time and place in relation to the prejudicial acts alleged against the person the cognizance taken of such a complaint would be vitiated. The rule laid down in these judgments is fully attracted to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as no details of time and place in respect of the vague allegations against the petitioner made in the report have been furnished. The only details disclosed in the report relate to the isolated incident upon which the petitioner was sent up for trial on two charges already mentioned. The petitioner, as already stated, has been acquitted of the charge under the Arms Ordinance and the other charge is still pending trial.
5. For the foregoing reasons we agree with the contention that to cognizance taken and proceedings draw up against the petitioner are wholly unsustainable in law and are liable to be quashed. The Additional A: G. also does not support the impugned proceedings. We therefore declare that the said proceedings are illegal and without lawful authority. In consequence the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer