1989 PLP 1726 (MLD)
GHULAM QADIR BUX‑‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1726 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Mirza, J. |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR BUX‑‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Crimes Control Act (XV of 1975)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1726 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Crimes Control Act (XV of 1975)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1726 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Salahuddin Mirza, J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1726 (MLD) (GHULAM QADIR BUX‑‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Mohammad lshaq for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 20th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 14‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V, of 1898), S. 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Court issued non‑bale-able warrants of accused in first instance instead of issuing notices‑‑Police report listed only two cases stated to be pending against accused, but no details were given in respect of those two cases‑‑Issuing non‑bailable warrants an first instance having vitiated proceedings and giving insufficient details of pending cases against accused and lack of other material details, not warranting proceedings against accused‑‑Proceedings pending against accused were quashed. 1986 P Cr.L J 98;1980 P Cr.L J 332 and 1989 P Cr.L J 756 ref. A.K. Jatoi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
1986 P Cr.L J 98;1980 P Cr.L J 332 and 1989 P Cr.L J 756 ref. Sardar Mohammad lshaq for Petitioner. A.K. Jatoi for the State. Date of hearing: 20th April, 1989. On the report of SHO Baldia Town Karachi, East, SDM Baldia passed order under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, and issued non-bailable warrants of the applicant as a result of which the applicant was arrested. It is alleged that the police report did not disclose any valid ground for proceeding against the applicant under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. Learned counsel of the applicant and Mr. A. K. Jatoi, Advocate for the State have been heard.
2. It is clear from the order dated 16‑3‑1989 passed under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, that learned SDM issued non bailable warrants of the applicant in the first instance instead of issuing notices. Besides, the police report lists only two cases and both of them are stated to be pending and no details are given even in respect of these two cases, one of which is under Hudood Ordinance and the other under Gambling Ordinance. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on 1986 P.Cr.L.J. 98, 1980 P.Cr.LJ 332 and 1989 P.Cr.L.J. 756 in support of his contentions that issuing non bail-able warrants in the first instance vitiates the proceedings and that giving insufficient details of the pending cases against the applicant and lack of other material details do not warrant proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. Learned counsel appearing for the State concedes on all these points and does not oppose the Quashment of proceedings. I agree with learned counsel and, as a result, proceedings pending against the applicant under the Sind Crimes Control Act before S.D.M. Baldia are quashed. H.B.T./G‑122/K Proceeding quashed.