SAFFAR vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, impugning an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehar, under section 4/14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal question concerns the legality of proceedings initiated on vague and general allegations without specific instances of criminal acts and where the accused had only been challaned rather than convicted in prior cases. The court held that the allegations were vague and general, and the impugned order was passed mechanically without application of mind, failing to comply with the provisions of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the pending proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were quashed, establishing the principle that proceedings under preventive maintenance statutes cannot be sustained when based on vague police reports lacking specific instances and mere involvement in challaned cases without convictions.
- Can proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act be initiated on the basis of vague and general police reports?
- Does mere involvement and challan in criminal cases, without conviction, suffice for passing an order under the Sindh Crimes Control Act?
- Whether an order passed mechanically without application of mind under section 4/14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act is liable to be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 4/14, Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance
- Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 401, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. This application has been filed by the petitioner under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehar, under section 4/14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The report filed by the S.H.O. Upon which cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.M., shows that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are of general nature and the same also appear to be vague. No instances of commission of any acts alleged against the petitioner have been specifically given. No doubt, three cases have been mentioned in which the petitioner is allegedly involved but it appears from the report of the S.H.O. That the petitioner has only been challaned in the said cases and consequently, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had been convicted in any of the said cases. The cases in which the petitioner is said to be involved are under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance and section 399/401, P.P.C.
2. The aforesaid circumstances indicate that the learned S.D.M. Mehar, I has not proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the Sindh Crimes A Control Act. The order passed by him shows that the same has been mechanically passed without any application of mind.
3. In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the learned S.D.M. Mehar are quashed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- SAIN BUX vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 2298
- SARDAR alias SARDARO vs THE STATE and another 1993 P Cr. L J 2289
- SIKANDAR vs THE S.D.M., ROHRI and others 1993 P Cr. L J 2292