Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1645 of 1986, decided on 8^th December, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Sind Crimes Control Act (VI of 1975), Ss.5, 6 & 14‑‑ Quashing of proceedings‑‑Complaint of being notorious, cunning and Goonda‑type‑‑Thirty‑two instances of criminal cases cited but in most of such cases applicants were acquitted, discharged or cases were compromised or dropped‑‑No material placed on record before tribunal nor any evidence recorded‑‑Allegations not specific Extraneous circumstances taken into consideration‑‑Non‑bailable warrants issued without first issuing summons‑‑Copy of complaint not served on accused‑‑Tribunal, held, violated mandatory provisions of Ss. 5 & 6 of Sind Crimes Act, 1975 and had not applied judicial mind to facts of case‑‑Proceedings quashed in circumstances.

S. Nasiruddin for Appellant.

Makhdoom A. Wali for the State.

Date of hearing: 8^th December, 1986.

Inspector Malik Muhammad Ahsan of Baghdadi Police Station on 13‑9‑1986 lodged a report against the applicant under section 14 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 in the Court of A.C. and S.D.M. City and Tribunal Karachi. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant is notorious, cunning and Goonda‑type of man. He used to sell Charas and Heroin through his agents and has also established a Cosmo Club where the public used to play gambling. 32 instances of criminal cases have been cited against the applicant. The learned S.D. M. after perusing the report registered the case and issued non‑bailable warrants against the applicant on 13‑9‑1986. The applicant being aggrieved has filed the present application for quashment of the proceedings.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Makhdoom Abdul Wali for the State. In the instant case 32 instances of criminal cases have been cited against the applicant. Cases at serial Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 24, 26 and 27 have been .hown to have been compromised. Cases at serial Nos, 7 and 12 have been shown to have recorded acquittal. Cases at serial Nos. 8, 10, 11, 13, 14. 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 31 and 32 are shown to have been pending in Courts. Case at serial No. 19 shows that the applicant way discharged. The applicant has also filed judgments of the Courts showing that in certain cases the applicant has been acquitted and in some cases conviction was recorded but on appeal the conviction was set aside. Case at serial No. 1 is of the year 1960 and at serial No. 6 is of the year 1964, at serial No. 10 of the year 1974 and at No. 20 of the year 1978. In the cases at serial Nos. 28 and 29 it has been shown that the applicant has been convicted, but the learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record the judgments of the Courts in these cases as Annexure 'B‑10'. In these cases, the applicant has been acquitted. Annexures 'B‑1' to 'B‑11' filed by the applicant supports the contention of the applicant. It is contended that as there is some dispute over a plot with one Imdad Ali and at his instance these proceedings have been initiated. It is clear that some of the cases are of the years 1960, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1973 etc. and in most of the cases either he has' been discharged or acquitted and in some of the cases parties have compromised or the proceedings have been dropped. This application has to be accepted on the ground that the Tribunal has violated the provisions of section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 as no summons were issued in the first instance and non‑bailable warrants for the arrest of the applicant have been issued without applying judicial mind to the facts of the case. The learned Tribunal has also violated the provisions of section 6 of the Act as no copy of the complaint has been served on the applicant. No material was placed before the Tribunal nor any evidence was recorded by the Tribunal before it passed the order impugned in this application. The allegations are not specific and the learned Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of the Act which are mandatory in nature and extraneous circumstances have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal on the basis of report lodged by the police. Some cases are pending against the applicant but no conviction had been recorded against the applicant, therefore, these cases cannot be considered for proceedings under the provisions of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.

3. I, therefore, accept this application and quash the proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of A.C. at‑1 S.D.M. City and Tribunal Karachi Case No. X of 1986 under section 14 Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 of Bagdadi Police Station, Karachi. The applicant was admitted to bail by the Tribunal and as the application has been accepted, therefore, his bail bonds are discharged.

S.A. 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.