Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. S‑151 of 1981, decided on 6th December, 1981.

-‑‑ S. 14 read with S. 5 & 6‑Detention, validity of‑Police report 'containing vague allegations such as detenu indulging in charas, a notorious charas seller and a desperate person who would generally, assault public---Tribunal instead of issuing summons in first instance issuing non‑bailable warrants against detenu, without recording substance of report or information laid by Police, in his order directing issuance of warrant‑List of cases cited as instances disclosing two of such cases being compromised long ago while others old cases arid their fate not known‑Cognizance taken by Tribunal under Act, held, could not b sustained in absence of compliance of requirement of Ss. 5 & 6 of Act --‑Order set aside, in circum stances.

Ali Muhammad Solangi v. Tribunal/S. D. M., Nazimabad, Karachi P. L D 1980, Kar. 267 ref.

S. Nasiruddin for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, A. A.‑G. for Respondents.

Dates of hearing : 30th November and 2nd December, 1981.

This Petition challenges the cognizance taken by the tribunal cons tituted under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a complaint made under section 14 on the ground that it was in complete disregard of the mandatory requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the Act. It was mainly argued that the report submitted by the police was wholly vague, lacking in particulars and did not detail the time and place of the acts with which the detenu was charged, and that the learned tribunal instead of issuing summons in the first instance against the detenu issued non‑bailable warrants for his appear ance without recording substance of report or information laid by police in his order directing issuance of warrant. I have gone through the report and find that it contains vague allegations such as the detenu indulges in charas and .is a notorious charas seller and is a desperate person who generally assaults the public. The record also shows that the learned tribunal instead of issuing summons in the first instance issued non‑bailable warrants against the detenu without recording substance of report or information laid by police in his order directing issuance of warrant. By way of particulars a list .of cases was given which reads as follows :‑

2. I have heard Mr. S. Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. I. Memon the learned Additional Advocate‑General for the respondent. Mr. S. Nasiruddin has invited my attention to the case of Ali Muhammad Solangi v. Tribunal/S. D. M. Nazimabad, Karachi (P L D 1980 Kar. 67), wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that a mere list of cases in which the detenu was challaned cannot be a substitute for statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of the Act, section 6 of the Act like section 5 of the said Act also provides for the same particulars. What I find that even the list of the cases shows that two of such cases were compromised long back and three others were pending as long back as in the years 1974, 1975 and 1976 and the learned Additional Advocate‑General is doubtful as to whether they may be still pending in the Courts. In numerous cases this Court has held that cognizance under the Act cannot be sustained in the absence of compliance of the requirement of its section 6, and warrants cannot be issued against the detenu in absence of compliance of the requirements of its section 5. Mr. M. I. Memon, the learned Additional Advocate‑General has very frankly conceded that there is no compliance of the requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the Act in the instant case.

3. The petition is, therefore, allowed with 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.