1987 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A & 110‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Preventive detention‑ Applicant convicted only once in a gambling case about ten years back while three cases against him pending adjudication‑‑Applicant detained for a period of six months under Sind Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance and as soon as applicant came out from prison, he was arrested under S. 110, Cr.P.C.‑‑No fresh instances mentioned in complaint to show that applicant started criminal activities against public safety after his release from jail‑‑No case for initiating proceedings under S. 110, Cr.P.C. made out‑‑Proceedings quashed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Applicant. A.I. Qarni for the State. Date of hearing: 25th September, 1986. The applicant was arrested in January, 1986 and was thereafter ordered to be detained under the provisions of Sind Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 for a period of three months followed by a subsequent period of three months. His case was considered by the Review Board and he was released on 27‑7‑1986 under recommendations of the Review Board. As soon as the applicant came out from the prison he was arrested by the S.H.O., Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi East and a case under section 110, Cr.P.C. was registered against him. The learned Magistrate initiated proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. The applicant was called upon by the learned Magistrate to show cause as to why he should not be bound down for a period of one year to maintain good behaviour and to furnish surety and P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 from 29‑7‑1986.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no material against the applicant to show that proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. have been initiated in accordance with law. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel. The applicant was detained in jail for about six months and in order to detain the applicant under section 110, Cr.P.C. there must have been some fresh material against him. The complaint does not show a single instance that the accused/applicant has started criminal activities against the public safety after he was released from Jail. Section 110, Cr.P.C. is exhaustive and the provisions of this section have to be complied with strictly. No fresh instances have been mentioned in the report. Applicant was convicted in only one case under section 6 of the Gambling Ordinance which was registered in the year 1976. Three cases are pending against him and in no case he has been convicted. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that security is being demanded from the applicant but the security cannot be demanded by way of punishment.

3. As the necessary ingredients of section 110, Cr.P.C. are missing in the present case, the proceedings pending against him in the Court of S.D.M. Malir (State v. Misal Khan) under section 110, Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed. S.G.D/M‑56/K Proceedings quashed.