Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. 115 of 1982, decided on 2nd September, 1982.

‑‑ S. 561‑A read with Sind Crimes Control Act (IVof 1975), Ss. 4, 5, 6 & 8‑Preventive action, validity of‑Quashment of proceedings Allegations against petitioner vague and general and none of cases in which petitioner challaned resulted in conviction‑--On contrary in some cases petitioner discharged or acquitted while some of them withdrawn by prosecution‑Cognizance taken by Sub -Divisional Magistrate on such Police report, held, without jurisdic tion and in complete violation of Ss. 5 & 6 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.‑[Preventive detention].

Muhammad Siddique v. S. D. M. Tribunal P L D 1981 Kar. 685 and Ali Muhammad Salangi v. Tribunul/S. D. M., Nazimabad, Karachi P L D 1980Kar. 267 ref.

A. Aziz for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ali Saeed, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 2nd September, 1982.

I heard the learned counsel for petitioner yesterday, and the matter was adjourned to today, for hearing of the Assistant Advocate‑General. The Assistant Advocate‑General appearing for the State supports the petition for quashment on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are vague and general, and that in none of the cases cited, the petitioner has been convicted. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the provisions of sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975.

I have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as the submissions made by the Assistant Advocate‑General. I have also gone through the police papers and report on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as well as the issuance of the non‑bailable warrant on the very day of the lodging of the report, without any inquiry.

I find that the allegations made against the present petitioner are not only general, but also vague. Besides, the cases in which the petitioner has been challaned, have not resulted in his conviction so far. On the contrary, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, in some of these cases, the petitioner has been discharged and or acquitted, and some of them have also been withdrawn by the prosecution. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, therefore, has relied on the cases: P L D 1981 Kar. 685, P L D 1980 Kar. 267and P L D 1977 Kar. 575. It was sub mitted by the learned counsel that the passing of an order for issuance of non‑bailable warrant as well as taking of cognizance on the basis of the police report in question, by the learned S. D. M. concerned was without jurisdiction and in complete violation of sections 5 and 6 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975.

I agree with the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner after perusal of the police report and, therefore, in my opinion, the juris diction assumed by the learned S. D. M. concerned was without lawful authority as there was no proper basis for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner.

I, therefore, allow the above petition and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of the learned S. D.M., Mirpur Sakro, at Gharo, initiated against the petitioner under the provisions the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975, and consequently discharge the surety bonds furnished by the petitioner.

Petition is allowed, with no orders as to cost. .

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.