Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1852 of 1986, decided on 22nd February, 1987.

‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Sind Crimes Control Act (IV. of 1975), S. 14‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Report submitted by police wholly vague and lacking in particulars giving no details of time date and place of acts charged‑ Complaint itself showing that accused had committed substantive offence under Ss. 420 &468, Penal Code‑‑Mandatory provisions of Ss 5 &6 of Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 violated and no ground existed on which non- bailable warrants could be issued‑‑Proceedings quashed.

Abdul Majeed v. S.D.M. City and Tribunal P L D 1977 Kar. 575; Urs v. Tribunal and S.D.M. Kotri P L D 1977 Kar. 506 and Haji Ali Muhammad v. Tribunal S.D.M. Nazimabad P L D 1980 Kar. 267 rel.

‑‑‑Ss. 6 & 14‑‑Cognizance under Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 could not be sustained in absence of compliance of requirements of S. 6 thereof.

I.I. Suleman for the Applicants.

Imam Bus Sheikh for the State.

Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1987.

The applicants have filed this application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings pending before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner, Civil Lines, Karachi, under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. On 4‑12‑1986 the complaint was filed by Inspector Incharge P.S. Preedy, Karachi, inter alia alleging therein that he received an application from Mr. Mehboob Alam Secretary, Church of Pakistan, Preedy Street, Karachi, against four applications and respondents Nos. 2 to 8 on the allegation that they sold a piece of land of St. Andrew Church to Abdul Majid Sattar for Rs.20,00,000. They had received Rs.1,00,000 as advance and that they prepared false papers, although this land is the property of Government. On enquiry he found that plot No. PR‑2/46, is a Church and property of Government of Pakistan. It was further stated that it has come to his knowledge that applicant James Khokhar alongwith some others tried to sell this land in 1985 but could nc2t succeed due to interference of Mr. Mehboob, the then Commissioner, Karachi. The public was warned through Newspaper that plot No. PF‑2/46, Church, Preedy Street is a Government property and no one is authorised to buy or sell this land. In spite of this advertisement the accused applicants ‑and the respondents Nos. 2 to 8 executed sale Agreement in respect of the eastern and southern part of Plot No. 26/27 and received Rs.1,00,000. This action of the accused comes under section 420/468, P.P.C. If the action was taken under section 420/468 it was easy for the accused to get bail from the Court and abscond as they are used to it. Knowing the seriousness of the act of the accused it is requested that action under section 14 Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 should be taken and warrant for their arrest be issued.

On receipt of the above complaint the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate recorded statement of S.H.O. Mr. Tahiruddin Qureshi on the same day, and issued non‑bailable warrants against the applicants and respondents Nos. 2 to 8. After arrest, the Sub Divisional‑Magistrate passed an order under section 8(3)(b), Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. On 9‑ 12‑ 1986, directing that the respondents may be detained for a period of two months during the pendency of the above enquiry. An application for bail was moved which was also rejected on 11‑12‑1986.

I have heard Mr. I.I. Suleman, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Imam Bux Shaikh, Advocates for the State. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that:‑

(i) That, the applicants as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 8 are peace living citizens and have never been challaned in any case, nor convicted.

(ii) That, the complaint is vague and gives only one instance of forgery and preparing of bogus document, for which too, complainant had not given time, date and place.

(iii) That, the learned Magistrate has acted mechanically and has not applied his mind before taking cognizance.

(iv) That, in any case there were no grounds for issuing non‑bailable warrants against the applicants and respondents Nos. 2 to 8, and the order of detention purported to have been passed under section 8(3)(b) Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 was unwarranted and illegal.

The learned counsel appearing for the State has very candidly conceded to the above position and has stated that he cannot defend the above proceedings including the impugned order.‑

I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. It is an admitted position that the report submitted by police is wholly vague lacking in particulars without giving details of time, date and place of acts charged. Even the complaint itself shows that the applicants and respondents Nos. 2 to 8 had committed substantive offence under sections 420 and 468, P.P.C., there was a clear violation of mandatory provisions of sections 5 and 6 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, in as much as the Sub- Divisional Magistrate had to issue summons at the first instance requiring the persons complained against to appear. He could issue non‑bailable warrant only in case where he was satisfied that there is reason to apprehend the commission of act complained against and that such commission of the act could not be prevented otherwise than by arrest of such person. In the present case, I have gone through the statement of the complainant and the order of the Sub‑ Divisional Magistrate passed under section 5 of Sind Crimes Control Act 1975, and I am of the view that not such ground existed on which non‑bailable warrants could be issued.

It may be pointed out that under section 6 every summon or warrant issued under section 5 shall be accompanied by the copy of the report to be sent to the person complained against. The, report is required briefly to state:‑‑

(i) The acts with which the person complained against is charged.

(ii) The details of time and place of such acts.

(iii) General repute of person complained of or such other allegations made against him.

In the case of Abdul Majeed v. S.D.M. City and Tribunal P L D 1977 Kar. 575, a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue of the nature of compliance of the provisions of the Act observed that since the Act is a special Act which affects liberty of citizens, its provisions prescribing the circumstances and mode in which the proceedings thereunder are to be initiated and taken and orders passed, would be deemed mandatory and have thus to be strictly followed.

In another case, of Urs v. Tribunal and S.D.M., Kotri P L D 1977 Kar. 506; it has been held that the Tribunal cannot be said to have acted legally in taking cognizance where there was no specific material before it and the only contents of the report were mere reproduction of the language used in some clauses of section 14 of the Act.

In the case of Haji Ali Muhammad v. Tribunal S.D.M., Nazimabad PLD 1980 Kar. 267 a Division Bench of this Court held that reports submitted by police wholly vague, lacking in particulars without giving the details of time and place of acts charged, but giving by way of particulars list of cases, mere list of cases in which petitioner challaned cannot be substitute for statement of particulars to be given under section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.

In numerous cases this court has held that the cognizance under the Act cannot be sustained in the absence of compliance of requirements of section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. I therefore, allow this application and quash the proceedings pending against the applicants and respondents Nos. 2 to 8 before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner Civil Lines, Karachi State v. James Khokhar and others under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Acts, 1975.

M.Y.H./J‑9/K 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.