P (PLP)

(a)

(b)

(c) requiring him to reside or remain in such place or within such area in province as may be specified in the order and if he is not already there to proceed to that place or area within such time as may be specified in the order'. Subsection 7 states:

(7) If any person contravenes any order made under this section, other than an order, of the nature referred to in clause (b) of subsection (6), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, and if such person has entered into a bond in pursuance of the provisions of subsection (3), his bond shall be forfreted and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof or show cause to the satisfaction of the convicting Court why such penalty should not be paid.' On 11th September, 1948, the Serishtedar of the District Magistrate of Sukkur filed a complaint .before the District Magis trate setting out the substance of the Chief Secretary's order and continuing: The order was sent to the accused for service through the police. He could not be traced in Sukkur District and ultimate the order was served on the accused at Karachi, on 6th September, 1948 by the Inspector of Police, Local Intelligence Staff. Karachi and this made the accused liable for prosecution under section 2 (7) of the Public Safety Act 1948, for which the Court may issue a warrant of arrest against the accused and send it to the District Magistrate Karachi for execution.' Thereupon the District Magistrate Sukkur passed the following order: `The offence falls under section 2 (7) of the Sind Public Safety Act, 1948. Issue warrants of arrest against the accused and send it to the District Magistrate, Karachi for execution.' A warrant was addressed to the District Magistrate, Karachi for the arrest and production of the applicant. The District Magistrate, Karachi considered that, the warrant lacked legal authority and allowed the applicant an opportunity to move the Chief Court to set aside the proceedings, in the meantime requiring the applicant to give surety. There are now two applications before us ; one is an application to quash the warrant and proceedings before the District Magis trate, Sukkur, and the 'second is in the alternative to transfer the proceedings from the District Magistrate Sukkur to any Court in Karachi. It is clear from the complaint that there is no allegation that the accused had either been served with the order or had knowledge of the order at any time when he was within the Province of Sind ; on the contrary he could not be found in his home District. We consider that it is necessary for a complaint to set forth matters which confer jurisdiction upon a Magistrate. It is conceded by the learned Advocate‑General that a Provincial Legislature has no power of extra‑territorial legislation. Thus, while we have no reason to doubt that the order had legal validity within the Province of Sind, that order outside the Province of Sind had no legal effect. Since this is so and since according to the record there is nothing to show that the applicant was inside Sind at any material time, there is thus nothing on record to show that the applicant has been guilty of contravening an order binding on him. We are of course not concerned with the position which would arise if the applicant entered the Province of Sind during the period for which this order is directed to remain in force. This is a different question. A further point was taken by Mr. Tufail Ali on behalf of the applicant that assuming the order had legal validity outside Sind, yet the contravention of that order took place outside the jurisdic tion of the District Magistrate of Sukkur. This point is involved in the decision already given which rests upon the combination of two propositions (a) that the order had no extra‑territorial effect and (b) that disobedience (to use a natural word) is not shown to have taken place in Sukkur District or any place in the District of Sind, Had the order had extraterritorial validity, disobedience would have amounted to contravention and an offence, but would still have occurred outside the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate of Sukkur. The result is, therefore, that we quash the warrant and proceed ings initiated by the District Magistrate of Sukkur upon the complaint dated 11th September, 1948. The question of transfer does not arise. K. M. A./A. H. Petition accepted.