Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. S‑36 of 1981, decided on 9th October, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 14‑‑Hazardous to locality‑‑Petitioner allegedly earning livelihood through fraud and cheating and also smuggling of contraband goods‑‑No details of facts or time and place of such activities given in report‑ Allegation vague and of general nature‑‑Petitioner, held, could not at all be described as hazardous to locality and Tribunal did not act legally in taking cognizance of such a report in circumstances.

‑‑‑Ss. 5, 6 & 14‑‑Tribunal not applying its mind to facts of case‑‑No reasons assigned for issuing non‑bailable warrants‑‑Copy of report not attached with warrants‑‑Tribunal not recording substance of report on information supplied by police‑‑Order of Tribunal issuing warrant without mentioning allegations against petitioner, held, could not be considered in compliance with provisions of Ss. 5 & 6 of Sind Crimes Control Act in circumstances.

‑‑‑Ss. 8(2) & 3(a)‑‑Furnishing of surety‑‑Tribunal not holding any inquiry and passing order for furnishing surety‑‑Tribunal, held, acted illegally in passing order under S. 8(3)(c) of Sind Crimes Control Act.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Sind Crimes Control Act (VI of 1975), Ss. 5, 6, 8 7(2), 3(c) & 14‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Violation of provisions of Ss. 5, 6 & 8(3)(a)‑ Assumption of jurisdiction by Tribunal in clear violation of provisions of law, held, was void and all orders passed by it were without lawful authority.‑‑[Jurisdiction].

Attaullah Khan for Petitioner.

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

Date of hearing: 22nd September, 1986.

This is a petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 hereinafter called the said Act.

The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that, prosecution case as contained in the report submitted by the S.H.O. New Karachi Police Station before the respondent No.1 under section 14 of the said Act are that the petitioner earns her livelihood through fraud and cheating and she also indulges in smuggling of the contraband goods. List of witnesses is annexed to the report and also the list of, the cases annexed to the report. The respondent No.1 passed the following order on 7‑3‑1981.

"Complaint received from S.H.O. New Karachi under section 14 Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 against opponent. Who appears hazardous to the locality and a fit person against whom N . B . W. should be issued. Issue process accordingly and register the case. Hearing 24‑3‑1981."

I have heard Mr. Attaullah Khan the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Additional Advocate -General, Mr. Memon has supported the petition.

I have perused the allegations contained in the report against the petitioner. Neither details of facts nor the time and place of such' facts with which the petitioner is charged are given in it. All that the report states is that the petitioner has been charged in the following case:---

(1) Case F I.R. No. 18/80 under section 420/406/170, P.P.C. of Jauharabad P.S.

(2) Case F.I.R. No. 19/80 under section 420/406/170, P.P.C. of Jauharabad P.S.

(3) Case F.I.R. No.22/80 under section 156(1), Customs Act of New Karachi Police Station.

(4) Case F.I.R. No. 23/80 under section 420/406/170, P.P.C of Liaquatabad P.S.

(5) Case F.I.R. No.60/81 under section 420/406/506, P.P.C. of New Karachi P.S.

The question which requires consideration is that whether the cases in which the petitioner is stated to have been involved have any nexus with the allegations made against her for bringing her within the scope of the said Act and the cases registered against her are in respect of offences allegedly committed by her. None of these reports were produced before me. In the absence of any details as to the nature, time and place of the acts alleged against the petitioner, it is difficult for me to hold that the case of the petitioner falls within clauses (xvii) and (xxiii) of section 14 of the said Act.

In the instant case it appears to be a clear violation of sections 5 and 6 of the said Act. A bare perusal of section 5 would show that on the receipt of the report, the Tribunal has to issue a summons requiring the person complained against to appear or when such a person is in custody a warrant directing the officer in whose custody she/he is to produce before it, provided of course that when it appears to such Tribunal upon the report of police officer and upon other information the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Tribunal that there is reason to apprehend the commission of the acts complained against and that such commission of the acts cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person a, the Tribunal may at any time issue warrant of his arrest.

A perusal of section 6 of the said Act would show that every' summons or warrant thus, issued to the person shall be accompanied by a copy of the report and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under, the same provided that the report shall briefly state (i) the acts with which the person complained against is charged, (ii) the details of time, place of such acts, (iii) general repute of person complained or such other allegation made against him.

In this case however. I find that the Tribunal did not apply its mind to the facts of the case of the petitioner. No reason whatsoever were assigned for issuing non‑bailable warrants against her. The tribunal did not even mention in its order as to what clause of section 14 of the said Act was attracted to the case of the petitioner. Thus, the Tribunal did not act legally in taking cognizance of the report in the absence of any specific materials.

There appears to me to be violation of the provisions of sections 5 of the said Act. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has failed to record the substance of the report or information by the Police in its order directing the issuance of the warrant and has merely stated therein that "the petitioner appears hazardous to the locality and a fit person against whom non‑bailable warrant should be issued". It seems that the non‑bailable warrant was issued without mentioning the allegations on the basis of the act of which the warrant was issued. The order thus, cannot be considered to be in compliance with the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the said Act.

In the instant case the petitioner was produced before the, Tribunal on 8‑3‑1991. A perusal of the order dated 8‑3‑1981 would show that the tribunal did not hold inquiry against her as provided by clause 2 of section 8 of the said Act. The Tribunal directed her to furnish two sureties each in the sum of Rs.20,000 with P.R. in the like amount for keeping good behaviour pending enquiry against her. The Tribunal acted illegally in passing order under section 8(3)(a) of the said Act.

The order passed under section 8(3) directing the petitioner to furnish surety for maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of her enquiry, the same appears to be without any basis. In the report the S.H.O. cited 5 witnesses of the acts complained against the petitioner. The allegations are vague and of general nature without giving any details as to time, place and particulars of the alleged acts against the petitioner that she earns her livelihood by cheating fraud and dishonest means and she is in the habit of bringing goods into Pakistan in contravenion of prohibition and restriction under law in force. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner cannot at all be described as a hazardous to the locality.

I find that the Tribunal did not apply its mind to the facts of the case of the petitioner. No reason whatsoever were assigned for ordering to furnish the surety. The order cannot be considered to be in compliance with the provisions of section 8(3)(a) of the said Act.

Since there has been, in the instant case, a violation of the provision of sections 5, 6 and 8(3)(a) of the said Act and an assumption, of jurisdiction upon a clear non‑compliance of the provisions of law, the petition is accepted and the impugned orders dated 7‑3‑1981 and', 8‑3‑1981 and all subsequent orders passed by the respondent No.1 are declared void as having been passed without lawful authority. The proceedings are, therefore, quashed. Personal Bond of the petitioner and sureties if furnished stand discharged.

The above are the reasons for my short order dated 22‑9‑1986 accepting the above petition on conclusion of the arguments.

S. A. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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