1999 PLP 2018 (MLD)

Mr Habibur Rasheed, learned counsel appearing for the State has conceded to the prayer of quashment of the case against the applicant. I have given my careful consideration to the facts of the case and submissions made by both the learned counsel. The two sections of the act which according to the learned counsel have been contravened being sections 5 and 6 are reproduced below: -- "

5. Summoning of persons:

On receipt of the report, the Tribunal shall issue a summon requiring the person complained against to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is, to produce him before it; Provided that whenever it appears to such Tribunal, upon the report of a Police Officer or upon other information (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Tribunal), that there is reason to apprehend the commission of the act complained against and that such commission of the act cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Tribunal may, at any time issue a warrant for his arrest.

6. Delivery of cony of report.

Every summons or warrant issued under section 5 shall be accompanied by a copy of the report and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served-with, or arrested under, the same: -- Provided that the report shall briefly state (i) the acts with which the person complained against is charged; (ii) the details of time and place of such acts; (iii) general repute of person complained or such other allegation made against him. " ???????????????? I have gone through the statement of S.H.O. recorded by .the learned tribunal which does not appear to be giving a reason for immediate apprehension of the commission of the acts complained against applicant, so as to enable learned Tribunal to issue non-bailable warrant. However, it is provided in section 6 reproduced (supra) that the copy of the report shall be accompanied by the summon/warrant issued against the applicant. Besides the report shall briefly state the acts with which the person complained against is charged and the details of time and place of such act are to be given. Admittedly, the report of the S.H.O. does not give the details of time and place of such act with which the applicant is allegedly charged. On the face I of these provisions of law contained in the act the S.H.O. in his report has not only failed to comply with the requirement but has completely ignored the same, In my humble view there was no reason to apprehend the commission of the act complained against the applicant and the compliance of section 6 is altogether ignored. However, there are some cases shown, in which the applicant, was involved. The fact that a person is facing trial in some cases or he I is previous convict would not attract any of `the (XXXV) clauses attached to section 14 as neither the number of cases nor the position of the applicant as a previous convict would minimize the requirements contained in sections 5 and 6 which are mandatory in nature, nor would determine application of section 14 of the Act. Reference may be made so (1) 1998 PCr.LJ page 60, (2) 1998 PCr.LJ page 951 and (3) 1996 PCr.LJ page

102. I am, therefore, satisfied in my mind that no useful purpose will be served if the proceedings which are presently pending before the learned Tribunal are allowed to continue. Thus, the, proceedings against the applicant under section 14 pf the Act, bearing Case No. 10 of 1997 are hereby quashed. C The applicant is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged. N.H.Q./N-85/K??????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????Proceedings quashed.