Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 2012 1992 SLD 2012 1992 PLJ 244
Sindh High Court
Criminal Misc. No.502 of 1991, accepted on 9.1.1992. Date of hearing: 24.12.1991.
MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ARSALA

VS

THE STATE and another—--Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 561-A,110

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)— —S.561-A read wilh Section 110—Being a scoundrel indulging in commissionand abetment of thefts, and selling and purchasing stolen property-Allegations of-Proceedings under Section 110 of Cr.P.C.- uashment of-Prayer for- There are general and routine allegations against petitioner lacking in particulars and instances-Names of criminals visiting him have not been given-Allegation that he was illegally occupying plots, does not come within ambit of Section 110 Cr.P.C.-Held: Mere pendency of one or more criminal cases against a person would not be sufficient for taking action under Section 110 of Cr.P.C.-Proceedings quashed.            [Pp.245246]AB   1978 P Cr. LJ 161, AIR 1939 Sindh 261, PLD 1971 Kar. 473,1981P Cr. LJ 373, 1983 P Cr. U 205, PLD 1976 Kar. 928,1982 P Cr. LJ 750 and 1986 P Cr. LJ 1230 rel. JUDGMENT Applicant Arsala has filed this application for quashment of proceedings pending against him in Court of the S.D.M. Kandkot under Section 110 of Cr.P.C.According to the police report applicant Arsala is scoundrel indulging in commission and abetment of the thefts. He has been committing and abetting commission of offences, with deadly weapons jointly with other criminals and thieves who visit him from distant places. He has been selling and purchasing stolen property. Applicant is also alleged to be encroaching and abetting encroachment on urban plots. He is also teasing the ladies at the road crossings.On receiving the police report, the S.D.M. proceeded against the applicant and remanded him«to custody. Hence this application.Mr. Muhammad Murad Chachar, learned counsel for the applicant argued that there were general and vague allegations against the applicant, with no instances and particulars about the acts allegedly committed by the applicant. It was further argued that all the witnesses cited against the applicant are police officers and that the applicant is not shown to be accused either in a theft-case or in a case about disposal of stolen property and that the only case pending against the applicant as per police report, was one under Arms Act.Mr. Zawar Hussain…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492