STATE Versus SHAHZAD WALI
1. Through this Criminal Miscellaneous, proceedings in respect of Case No.54 of 1997, State v. Allah Dad pending before the learned S.D.M./Tribunal (Eidgah) Karachi‑South under section 14 of the Sindh Crime Control Act, 1975 are sought to be quashed. On 10‑6‑1997 S.H.O. Napier Police Station, Karachi, had filed a report before learned A.C. and S.D.M. Eidgah, Karachi (South) under section 14 of the Sindh Crime Control Act against the applicant. It was stated in the said report that the applicant is residing at Bara Imam Compound Karachi, within the jurisdiction of Napier Police Station, Karachi, he is a criminal of the area, in addition to that he runs a Narcotic Den also. The applicant was further stated to have been arrested in two cases of Napier Police Station out of which he is stated to have been convicted in one case from the Court of competent jurisdiction, whereas one other case is pending trial. Such cases have been reflected in the said report. He was further stated to be dangerous and hazardous to the general public and community and, therefore, he was taken into custody. His application for bail was dismissed by the learned A.C. and S.D.M. Eidgah, and thereafter he filed the present application.
2. Upon perusal of the report as well as the statement and the order passed by the learned A.C. and S.D.M. Eidgah refusing bail, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings do not in any manner reflect any witnesses against the applicant, and the provisions of the Sindh Crime Control being preventive in nature and not punitive have been wrongly applied. The conviction rL11tlected in the report is only in terms of a fine of Rs.200 for possession of 'Bhang'. The applicant is 75 years of age. Provisions of section 14 of the Sindh Crime Control Act are aimed to secure good behaviour and not to provide advanced punishment to the applicant. Moreso, the report of the S.H.O., Napier Police Station do not state the acts for which the applicant was charged, nor any details of time and place of such acts, as well as the general repute of the applicant, which are mandatory requirements of section 6 of the Act. Such report of the S.Hs0., upon my consideration is found to be against the spirit of section 14 of the Sindh Crime Control Act which requires frequent repetition of offences, whereas the present applicant as per the report of the S.H.O., is shown to have been involved only in one case resulting into conviction in terms of fine of Rs.200 on the charge of possession of 'Bhang'. Furthermore, on independent witnesses have been cited, and therefore, no order can be safely passed on account of lack of evidence in the present matter.
3. I would therefore, quash the present proceedings against the applicant and discharged his bail bond. Criminal Miscellaneous No.304 of 1997 is allowed.
4. H.B.T./A‑159/K Proceedings quashed.