Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RAHIM BUKHSH VS Respondent: STATE
1992 M L D 2465
1992 M L D 2465
[Karachi]
Before Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, J
RAHIM BUKHSH‑‑‑Applicant
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Cr. Misc. Appln. No.276 of 1990, heard on 18th February, 1992.
(a) Sindh Crimes Control Act (IV of 1975)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 14(xxx)‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.561‑A‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑‑No instances regarding time and place of commission of any of the alleged acts had been disclosed in the complaint made by police against the accused‑‑‑Accused was not shown to be a previous convict and only police officials were cited as witnesses in the three cases allegedly registered against him‑‑‑Mere allegation against accused of having possessed deadly weapons was not enough to attract the provisions of S.14(xxx) of the Act unless the weapons. enumerated in the said clause were specifically mentioned to have been possessed by him‑‑‑Allegation against the applicant of being a dangerous criminal who committed serious crimes, without specifying the commission of such crimes frequently and repeatedly also did not meet the requirements of S.14‑‑‑Belonging to a particular political or ethnic group could not by itself bring such person within the four corners of the said section to warrant action against him‑‑‑Proceedings commenced against the applicant before the Magistrate were quashed in circumstances.
Amir Ali and 22 others v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 30; Muhammad Naseem Qureshi v. The State 1990 P Cr. L J 1249; Shahbaz Dino v. The State. 1991 P Cr. L J 269 and Shah Nazar Khan v. The Assistant Commissioner/S.D.M., Karachi and others P‑L D 1977 Kar. 582 rel.
(b) Sindh Crimes Control Act (IV of 1975)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑For maintaining an action under S.14, prosecution has to show that the person proceeded against acts habitually and frequently, or repeatedly commits one or more of such acts as are mentioned in the section, or has a reputation of habitually committing said acts.
Pir Bakhsh Khamisani for M. Yousuf Leghari for Applicant.
Abdul Latif Memon, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th February, 1992.
JUDGMENT
The applicant has challenged the proceedings commenced against him before the S.D.M., Mirpurkhas on the complaint of S.H.O. of Police Station Satellite Town Mirpurkhas under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, on the allegations that the applicant is a dangerous criminal, commits heinous crimes, belongs to Jiye Sindh Tehreek, has created problems for the public, possesses deadly weapons, lives in the company of criminals and is the companion of Sultan Mahmood. No instances regarding time and place of commission of any of the alleged acts have been disclosed. He is said to be involved in three cases, first one is under sections 435, 437, 341, P.P.C., second case under sections 147, 148, 188, 435, 345, P.P.C. and third under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance. He is not shown to be a previous convict. The witnesses cited against him are three officials of Police Station Satellite Town, Mirpurkhas. No witness from public has been named in the report.
The learned Advocate for the applicant as contended that the above allegations and the particulars given in the complaint do not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the Sindh Crimes Control Act (IV of 1975).
Section 6 of the aforesaid Act specifically provides that the report shall briefly state the acts with which the person complained against is charged, the details of time, and place of such acts and general reputation of a person complained against. None of the clauses of section 14 of the said Act are attracted except that the applicant is alleged to have possessed deadly weapons.
Section 14(xxx) refers to the persons, who frequently possess illegally or cause to be so possessed and use or cause to be used, any bomb, sten gun, machine gun, automatic rifle, grenade, rocket, dynamite or other explosive. Therefore, mere allegation that the applicant possesses deadly weapons would not be enough to attract the provisions of the aforesaid clause, unless, it is specifically mentioned that any of the weapons enumerated in aforesaid clause 'are possessed by him. Being a criminal or the allegation that the applicant is a dangerous criminal or commits serious crimes, without specifying the commission of such crimes frequently and repeatedly, again would not meet the requirements of section 14. Belonging to a particular political or ethnic S group would not by itself bring such persons within the four corners of section 14 to warrant action against him under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Same is the position with regard to the other allegations made in the complaint.
For maintaining an action under section 14 of the above Act, the prosecution has to show that the person proceeded against acts habitually and frequently, or repeatedly commits one or more of such acts as are mentioned in section 14 of the said Act or has a reputation of habitually committing said acts. In view of the rule laid down in the cases of Amir Ali and 22 others v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 30, Muhammad Naseem Qureshi v. The State 1990 P Cr. L J 1249, Shahbaz Dino v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 269, and Shah Nazar Khan v. The Assistant Commissioner/S.D.M., Karachi, and others P L D 1977 Kar. 582, the proceedings are liable to be quashed, and as such the same are hereby quashed.
N.H.Q./R‑221/K Proceedings quashed.