1982 P Cr (PLP)
SHAFAAT ALI-‑Petitioner Versus S. H. O., SADDAR POLICE STATION, KARACHI‑Respondent
| Citation | 1982 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hayee Kureshi Actg. C. J. and K. A. Ghani, J |
| Parties | SHAFAAT ALI-‑Petitioner Versus S. H. O., SADDAR POLICE STATION, KARACHI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Crimes Control Act (IV of 1975)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Crimes Control Act (IV of 1975)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Hayee Kureshi Actg. C. J. and K. A. Ghani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 P Cr (PLP) (SHAFAAT ALI-‑Petitioner Versus S. H. O., SADDAR POLICE STATION, KARACHI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ameer Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.
- Mohammad Ibrahim Memon A. A.‑G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing :17th September, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 14‑--History sheet, opening of‑Natural justice, principles, of‑Show‑cause notice or opportunity of hearing not given before opening of history sheet‑Such action, held, against principles of natural justice‑Order quashed.‑[Natural justice, principle of].
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, ACTG. C. J.‑The case of the petitioner is that he is a respectable shopkeeper and he is being .harassed by the respondent who had taken action against him under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act. It is also stated in the petition that on 23rd May, 1981 the respondent called the petitioner to the police station to enter his name in the Register maintained at the police station for history sheeters. The main ground urged in support of this petition is that such history sheet has been opened without any show‑cause notice or hearing.
2. No counter affidavit has been filed but the comments submitted by the respondent were produced in Court by the Additional Advocate‑General to day. In the comments while the respondent has denied that he called the petitioner to the police station be has stated that the history sheet of the petitioner was opened on 14th October, 1978 by the predecessor of the Station House Officer who is not holding charge at present. Even in these comments it is not stated that any show‑cause notice of hearing was given to the petitioner before opening the history sheet.
3. The action of opening of the history sheet of the petitioner is violative of the principles of natural justice and for such reasons we quash the order of the opening of history sheet of the petitioner and declare it to be of no lawful authority and of no legal effect. It shall however be open to the respondent to take fresh action after complying with the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice.
4. This petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order. The respondent shall bear the costs of the petition. Petition accepted.