MUHAMMAD RAZAULLAH Versus STATE

1. Applicant Muhammad Razaullah has filed this application for quashment of the criminal case which is outcome of F.I.R. No.90/89 of Tando Adam Police Station, registered for offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Pakistan (Control of Entry) Act, 1952 (hereafter to be mentioned as the Act).

2. According to the F.I.R., applicant Muhammad Razaullah was one of the 15 persons. who were spotted at the Bus Stand near Bismillah Hotel at Tando Adam on 22‑6‑1990 at 3‑30 p.m. All the 15 persons found at said place at said time and on being questioned ' replied that they had no Passport and Visa and that they had reached said place after crossing border. All the 15 persons including the applicant were arrested and a case under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act was registered against them including the applicant.

3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, AA: G. for State while none appeared for the applicant.

4. The grounds on the basis of which the applicant sought quashment of the criminal proceedings were:

(1) That he was a Pakistani having come to Tando Adam for search of job.

(2) That his arrest in absence of any order of a Magistrate to that effect was illegal because the alleged offence was non‑cognizable.

(3) That the police could not have taken action against him without authority of the Provincial Government or the Central Government as required under section 6 of the said Act.

(4) That the cognizance taken by the trial Court was in contravention of the provisions of law because police challan could not have been accepted in respect of a non‑cognizable offence.

5. In the application for quashment reliance has been placed on the case of Abdul Majeed v. The State (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 226 of 1990) decided by a learned Judge of this Court on 12‑8‑1990 which was again based on the cases reported in 1981 P Cr. L J 1008, 1983 P Cr. L J 889 and 1988 P Cr. L J 743.

6. Learned A.A.‑G. appearing for the State conceded that the case required to be quashed because the applicant was a Bengali and not a Indian National and as such he cannot be convicted under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act.

7. In, then: case of. Jamiluddin v. The State (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.177 of 1991), decided on 30‑5‑1991 in‑which a learned‑Single Judge of this Court took view that Pakistan (Control of Entry) Act, 1952 does not apply to a case where any body other than an Indian National is involved and that the provisions contained in sections 3 and 4 of the said Act do not apply to the nationals of Bengladesh. There is no reason for me to take a different view. Section 4 of the said Act punishes who contravene of the provisions‑ contained in ‑section 3 of the said Act. Subsections (1), (3), (5) and (6) of section 3 of said Act deal with Indian Nationals. Subsection (2) of section 3 of said .Act deals with Pakistani citizens. Subsection (4) of section 3 of said Act deals with persons of all nationalities. However, the present applicant is not alleged to have contravened subsection (4) of section 3 of the said Act.

8. As a result of the above discussion I accept this application and quash the proceedings pending against the applicant under sections 3 and 4 of said Act in Court of the Civil Judge and F.C.M. Tando Adam.

9. N.H.Q./M‑1697/K Proceedings quashed.