1977 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL QADIR HALEPOTA, J.-- This constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner above-named to challenge the proceedings pending against Murad son of Khuda Bukhsh Jatoi (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) under the Sind Crimes Control Act- 1975 (heteinafter referred to as the Art), On 17th May, 1975, Muhammad Unis S. H. O., Taluka Police Station, Larkana filed a report under section 1.4 of the Act against the detenu in the Court of Tribunal and S, 1?. M. Larkana in the said report it was alleged -a that the detenu induced minor boys for unmoral purpose and also folio-M women for an immoral purpose. It was further alleged that detenu being, in a state of intoxication, insulted persons passing by the road-side. It was alleged that the detenu had no ostensible means of subsistence and that he extorted money from people by intimation. In the report under reference three instances were cited. It was alleged that on 10th May 1975. the detenu who was intoxicated showered abuses and thus disturbed the public peace. On 13th May, 1975 at 7-00 p. m. the detenu committed indecent acts namely teased women and followed them for immoral purpose. Again on 15th May. 1975 at 8-00 p. m. he harrassed different people and thus disturbed public peace and tranquillity. Upon the receipt of this report the learned Tribunal took cognizance and issued a warrant for the arrest of the detenu in consequence of which he was arrested. Mrs. Salma Nasiruddin the learned counsel for the petitioner: untended that the allegations which formed the basis of proceedings against the detenu under the Act, even if true, would not be sufficient to justify action under the; Act, which dealt with persons who either frequently indulged in such act or were in 'the- habit of committing such fact. She argued that none of the clauses (vi), (viii) and (xviiii) was attracted in the instant case. We are of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not without force. Clause "(vi) of section 14 of the Act would be attracted only if upon enquiry held under the Act, the Tribnual was satisfied that the person "complained against was found frequently. Trunk or disorderly in 'public or-behaved riotously in 'public by entering into affrays or 'otherwise disturbed public peace, that he would be required to furnish a bond. Likewise clause (viii) of section 14 of the Act would come in to play only if the person complained against frequently teased, annoyed, molested and followed any woman, girl or boy under 18 years of age for au immoral purpose. The provisions of clause (xviii) would be applicable if the person proceeded against was found to be in the habit of, making livelihood, or extorting money or other property, or, receiving any concession or favour from any one by any form of intimation or influence. Like most of the other clauses of section 14 of the Act the words `frequently' and `habit' are used in these three clauses as well. Upon the three instances quoted in the report under reference, we are unable to accept that the detenu was frequently drunk or disorderly in public and/or that he frequently teased, annoyed, molested or followed any woman or minor boy for an immoral purpose. Not a single instance was quoted to show that the detenu ever extorted money from any one by any form of intimidation or influence. The three instances quoted in the report under reference are not in our view sufficient to initiate proceedings against the detenu under the Act. Consequently we are of the view that clauses (vi), (viii) and (xviii) and for that matter none of the clauses of section 14 of the Act are attracted in the instant case. We therefore, hold that the proceedings taken against the detenu undo the Act are without lawful authority and of no, legal effect We accordingly quash the proceedings pending against the detenu, under the Act Proceedings quashed.