TANVEER HUSSAIN alias KOBRA vs THE STATE and 2 others
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. The core legal question was whether general allegations and labelling a person as a terrorist without specifying dates, times, or places of incidents, and without complying with mandatory procedural provisions, could sustain proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act. The Sindh High Court held that the proceedings were initiated in mechanical fashion in violation of the mandatory provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the said Act, as no specific incidents were quoted in the police report. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and quashed the pending proceedings against the applicant. The key principle laid down is that general allegations and mere labelling of a person as a terrorist or dangerous without specific particulars and adherence to mandatory statutory procedures do not constitute sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act.
- Whether general allegations of being a terrorist without specific particulars of time, date, and place are sufficient to initiate proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act?
- Are the provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act mandatory in nature?
- Can criminal proceedings initiated in a mechanical manner without application of mind by the Tribunal be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 14, Sindh Crimes Control Act
- Section 4, Sindh Crimes Control Act
- Section 5, Sindh Crimes Control Act
- Section 6, Sindh Crimes Control Act
1. This petition .Under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., has been filed by applicant Tanveer with prayer for quashment of Case No,Nil of 1998. The State v. Tanveer Ahmed, under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, pending inquiry before the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal Model Colony, Karachi (East).
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the police report, dated 8-7-1998 or even the statement of S.H.O. Recorded before the Tribunal on 11-7-1998 do not contain' any particulars relating to date, time and place of the incident alleged against the applicant. He contends that there are general allegations levelled against the applicant that he is a terrorist and involved in a number of cases. The order of the learned S.D.M. Passed on the report of the S.H.O. Is also bad in law and has been passed in a mechanical manner without caring to see whether provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act were complied or not. The applicant has been acquitted in a number of cases including the two murder cases shown in the list and that he is not a previous convict.
3. The learned counsel has lastly urged that involvement of a person in some cases or by terming him as a terrorist would by no means be a sufficient ground to initiate proceedings under this Act.
4. He has placed reliance on 1998 PCr.LJ 60 and 1998 PCr.LJ 1038.
5. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose the prayer of the applicant on the ground that there is only general allegations against the applicant of being a terrorist and a dangerous person. He has fairly conceded that there is violation of provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act and in view of a number of decisions of this Court the quashment proceedings pending against the applicant would meet the ends of justice.
6. On perusal of the record, it appears that no specific incident relating to the criminal act of the applicant has been quoted. Merely labelling a person as terrorist or dangerous would not form a ground for initiating such proceedings. The provision of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act are mandatory in nature. Learned S.D.M./Tribunal appears to have acted mechanically and without applying his mind to the police report which is further evident from a letter Annexure "A/3" sent by S.D.P.O. Sharia Faisal, Karachi. The learned S.D.M./Tribunal appears to have failed to act independently.
7. Since the proceedings initiated against the applicant are in violation of provision of sections 5 and 6 of the Act, the same are hereby quashed. The applicant is stated to be on bail.
8. His bail bond and that of his surety stand discharged.
Cited by 2 cases
- HAZOOR BAKHSH vs RIAZ ALI ABBASSI and another 2003 PLD Karachi 340
- ZAFAR RAJPOOT vs S.D.M. and 2 others 2002 MLD 259