1. This Revision Petition under section 22 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, is directed against the order of Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, passed in appeal in respect ef the detention of applicant by Tribunal and S.D.M., City Hyderabad under section 8(3)(b) of the said Act.
2. A report was filed by S.H.O. Market police against the applicant that he indulged in making false applications against businessm en to various authorities and thus black-mailing them. The learned S.D.M after examining the S.H O. Market Police, Muhammad Farooq and Mohammad Umer, passed orders under section 8(3)(b) of the Act fog detention of the applicant pending the enquiry for a period of 2 months An appeal was preferred against this order to Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, who dismissed the same.
3. It has been pointed out that the applicant had long-standing enmity with the family of Haji Muhammad Ishaque on account of certain evacuee property consisting of lands. He thereafter made application to the F.I.A. And Income-Tar authorities against Haji Muhammad Ishaque and his family regarding evasion of income tax. Haji Muhammad Ishaque and Iris sons Umer Farooq and Siddique were proprietors of three business concerns known as Pakistan Oil Mills. Umer Soap Factory and Farooq Decorations. For the information given by the applicant the Income-tax authorities, discovered the evasions and the applicant was given reward for supplying the information.
4. It has been pointed out that the case of the applicant does not fall within the four corners of section 14 of the Crimes Control Act. The applicant is charged with black-mailing under clause (xviii) of section 4. Under this clause, a person should try to extort money by intimi--dation or influence. In this case it has been argued that the applicant has not extorted money from Haji Ishaque and his family. It has been pointed out that the applicant is no; in the habit of making allegations against the various businessmen in general but he has enmity with a particular family and he has supplied information against that family but not with intention to extort money from them.
5. It has next been argued that the order under section 8(3)(b) was passed after recording the evidence of S.H.O. And two P. Ws. Umer and Farooq. These are the persons against whom the applicant harboured i11 feelings and regarding whom information was supplied to the authori-- ties. They were therefore interested witnesses and no orders could have been based on their evidence.
6. Mr. Manzoor Hussain appearing on behalf of the State concedes that this is not a case of black- mailing under section 14, clause (18) of the Sind Crimes Act. That, supplying of information leading to the discovery of tax evasion, cannot be punished as an offence. That this has been done in respect of a single family and not businessmen in general. That the idea was not to extort the money but to cause harm to that particular family due to enmity.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find that the proceedings have been started against the applicant without proper justification as his case does not fall with the provisions of Crimes Control Act, no could it be said that his remaining at large was hazardous' to the community in general.
8. The proceedings and the order passed under section 8(3)(b) of the Sind Crimes Control Act are accordingly hereby quashed.