WAHID BUX alias WAH1DU vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER

ORDER

1. ' ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, C. J.-By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, the petitioner Wahid Bux alias Wahidu son of Khair Muhammad has challenged the proceedings drawn up against him under section 14 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975, and the consequent order of issue of the non- bailable warrant against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal, Sukkur. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely involved by the S. H. O. Of the old Sukkur Police Station for the reason that he was successful in obtaining bail in an earlier false case registered against him under sections 394, 397, 307, P. P. C. And 13-D of the Arms Ordinance.

2. ' In the complaint filed against the petitioner by the S. H. O. Old Sukkur Police Station, it is alleged that he is a receiver of stolen property ; he frequently gets drunk and intoxicated with charas and wine, and generally behaves in disorderly fashion in public ; and that he is a habitual housebreaker, and is in the habit of carrying unlicensed arms and thereby harassing the public. It is further alleged that he has no means of livelihood except for selling stolen property.

3. ' In support of these allegations, six instances of previous cases have been cited out of which one case pertains to the year 1958, one to the year 1959, two were registered in the year 1962, and the rest are fresh cases which, however, arise out of a single incident.

4. ' Since beyond these cases, no other instance has been cited in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, we questioned the learned Additional Advocate-General whether the previous cases are still pending or these have been disposed of. In reply, learned Additional Advocate-General frankly stated that the petitioner was not even challaned in any of the earlier cases, and the two fresh cases registered against him arise out of a single incident. Learned Additional Advocate-General also frankly conceded that, in view of the decision of this Court in Muhammad Ishaq v. The Tribunal and A. D. M., Larkana (1) action under the Act could not have been taken against the petitioner on the basis of a solitary or a single instance relied upon in support of the complaint.

5. ' Mr. A. M. Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the Tribunal has acted contrary to law in issuing the non-bailable warrant against the petitioner immediately on receipt of the complaint against him, without even caring to apply his mind to the requirements of section 5 or 8(3) (b) of the Act. {{FOOT NOTE}}

(1) PLD 1975 Kar. 195 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' These submissions have valid support from the record of the case itself, which has been produced by learned Additional Advocate-General, and he, in view of this position, was not able to support the impugned action taken against the petitioner.

6. On these facts and circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the complaint filed against him under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 are actions without lawful authority. We accordingly quash the impugned orders passed against the petitioners and allow this petition, as prayed.

7. ' In result, the petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required in some other connection.