1992 P Cr (PLP)
BUDHO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BUDHO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Crimes Control Act (IV of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Crimes Control Act (IV of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (BUDHO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Waqar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.5, 6, 8 &. 14
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A
Order under S.8 of Act, calling upon accused to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute bond in order to control his activities for a period of three years for maintaining good behaviour, was passed by Authority against accused without recording any evidence
Order not only was passed without concluding enquiry under S.14 of Act, but also was passed without complying with requirement of Ss.5 & 6 of Act as neither any particular of time nor date of alleged act of accused had been mentioned-- Authority also had refused to accept surety offered by accused on ground that as a policy matter he would not accept same
Order of Authority admittedly having been passed in excess of its powers, proceedings pending before Authority were quashed.
Judgment & Decree
versus under section 14 S.C.C. Act. Order under section 8 S.C.C. Act. Whereas information has been laid before me by the S.H.O. Gharo that you Budho s/o Haji Ramzan Zanganani resident of Deh Mari within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court is (1) Habitual thief. (2) Without ostensible means of livelihood. (3) Receiver and disposer of stolen property on Bhung. (4) Harbourer of thieves from remote places. (5) So desparate and dangerous that your being remaining at large without security is hazardous to the public peace and tranquillity. I, therefore, call upon you to show cause as to why, you should not be ordered to execute a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000 with one solevent surety and P.R. bond in the like amount, able to control your activities for a period of three years for maintaining good behaviour. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 14th day of March, 1991. (Sd.) Sub-Divisional Magistrate M'Sakro at Gharo." Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above order has been passed by the respondent without recording any evidence in the case. It is quite clear from reading of the impugned order that the order impugned in these petitions has been passed in excess of the authority as during pendency of the proceedings the respondent could only require the petitioner to execute a bond' with or without surety for maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the enquiry before the respondent. In the present cases he has directed the petitioner to furnish surety bond in the sum of Rs.5,000 each for a period of three years which order could only be passed on the conclusion of enquiry under section 14 of the Act. Apart from it the Tribunal before passing the order has failed to comply with the requirement of sections 5 and 6 of the Act as neither any particular of time nor date of the alleged act has been mentioned. It is also surprising that the respondent refused to accept the surety offered by the petitioner on the ground that as a policy matter he will not accept the surety in such cases. The learned AA.-G. did not support the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in the case. I accordingly accept the' abovementioned criminal miscellaneous and quash the proceedings pending before the respondent. H.B.T./B-203/K Proceedings quashed.