Pakistan Case Law← Search
2014 P Cr. L J 1349

Maulvi ALI MUHAMMAD HADI and another vs The STATE

Citation2014 P Cr. L J 1349
CourtGilgit Baltistan Chief Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No.113 of 2013
Date2014-05-08
Judge(s)Sahib Khan
ResultOrder quashed

ORDER

' SAHIB KHAN, C.J.---This petition under section 561-A for quashment of order dated 27-10-2013 passed by sub-Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner shiger, wherein the petitioners have been bound down under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. Read with section 11-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners and A.A.-G. For respondents. Assistant. Commissioner shigar was also directed to appear in the Court with relevant record of the case. Record perused.

3. Record of the case reveals that Head Constable/Incharge Police Choki Gulapur submitted a report to the sub-Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner shigar on 27-10-2013. In his report the police officer requested to bound down the petitioners mainly on following two points. Firstly, that the petitioners were previously convicted for distribution of disputed booklets among the society in subdivision skardu. Secondly, the source reports have intimated that both the petitioners are going to disturb public tranquillity and peace of the area through their speechs.

4. The sub-Divisional Magistrate on the same day and date i.e. 27-10-2013 issued the impugned order and he thereby bound down the petitioners under sections 107/151, Cr.P.C. Read with section 11-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and ordered for execution of personal bond worth of Rs. 500,000 (Five Lacs Only) with two sureties each in the like amount for a period of three years.

5. It is very much clear that the Magistrate holding proceeding did not follow the procedure laid down under sections 107 and 112, Cr.P.C. He did not even serve a show-cause notice to the petitioners before passing a drastic order for a longest period of three years and the amount fixed for personal bonds and sureties against huge amount. It is the requirement of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard. Visibly non-issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioners is nothing except to violate the basic principle of natural justice known as "no one should be condemned unheard".

6. The second infirmity found in the order is that the Magistrate while passing the impugned order could not be able to determine his own jurisdiction. In the report submitted by the Choki Incharge /H.C, it was mentioned that the petitioners had committed any illegal act by distributing controversial booklets and they were convicted for that offence. In fact the petitioners were charged for distribution of controversial booklets within the territorial area of sub-Division skardu but not in shigar sub-Division. The petitioners were acquitted from the charges by the superior Court but this fact has been malafidely not disclosed in the report is nothing but to dishonour the petitioners.

7. In the like situation the Magistrate was legally bound to refer the matter to respective sessions Judge because he himself had got no jurisdiction to penalize and seize the liberty of a person for an offence if committed within his jurisdictional area. The act of Magistrate is nothing except miscarriage of justice.

8. The power provided under section 11-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is exclusively vested with DPO/sP as visible from the plain reading of the provision of law with certain limitations but the provision of law do not vest any power to a sDM to bound down any person on the basis of simple allegations levelled by a low level police officer.

9. The Magistrate acting under the provision referred above is having jurisdictional powers and presumed to hold all the proceedings in free fair independent and impartial manner. The Magistrate should keep in mind that the material placed before him is sufficient to satisfy himself about any disturbances in public tranquillity can be caused if the alleged person is not bound down. The Magistrate should strictly follow the requirements of law, even should record evidence where deems necessary.

10. For the reasons stated the order dated 27-10-2013 bears no legal force even have been passed without jurisdiction and is result oflA misconception of law, hence quashed. File.

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search