Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Q. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1256 of 1984, decided on 26th November, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979), Ss. 5 & 7‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Accused in parawise comments submitted by him on an application for Contempt of Court by respondents conveying to Court what was reported to him by a foreign prisoner from jail‑‑Accused having not committed any offence‑ Circumstances of case clearly showing that it was misuse of process of Court proceedings against accused quashed.
Mohammad Ali Shaikh for Applicant.
Makhdoom A. Wali for the Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th November, 1986.
Islamuddin filed a complaint in the Court of Sessions alleging therein that he had filed a Criminal Original Miscellaneous application for Contempt of Court in this Court. On the said application parawise comments were called from the present applicant and the applicant submitted his parawise comments and in para. 9 he has stated that the petitioner even did not spare his co‑prisoner in jail, I feel ashamed to even to attach a photostat copy of complaint, dated 13‑2‑1979 from one foreign prisoner by name INC‑DHERDI. The above named foreigner prisoner was confined in one and same ward during his confinement in Central Prison Karachi and the petitioner committed unnatural offence with above named foreign prisoner'. Preliminary enquiry was ordered in this case and then learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order holding that a prima facie offence appears to have been committed under sections 5/7 of the offences of Kazaf Ordinance. The applicant moved an application to the trial Court under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. but that application was rejected, hence the present application.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that before filing the present complaint an application for contempt was moved by the private respondent. Parawise comments were submitted by the applicant and the notice was discharged and thereafter the present proceedings have been initiated by the complaint. In the parawise comments the applicant has based his observations on the letter of the foreigner which is attached to the comments and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has levelled any allegations against the complainant. The advocate of the respondent No. 2 was examined during the enquiry but he has not stated anything against the applicant. There is not sufficient material to justify the proceedings against the applicant who was a responsible Government officer. Even the Government of Sind has moved an application under section 494, Cr.P.C. through Assistant Public Prosecutor for the withdrawal of the case but the learned trial Judge did not accede to the request of the Government.
3. I think the circumstances of the case clearly show that it was misuse of the process of the Court. The applicant has not committed any offence. He has levelled no allegations and whatever has been reported to him by the prisoner, he conveyed to this Court. The application is accepted and the proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge are quashed.
M.Y.H./N‑34/K Proceedings quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer