SYED KHURSHEED HAIDER RIZVI, J.-This Criminal Misc. Application under section 561-A Cr.P.C, has been filed on behalf of the applicants Inayatullah and Mohammad Rasheed for quashment of proceedings pending against them in the Court of A.C.M., Shahdadpur in consequence of FIR No. 90/89 under section 3/4 of the Pakistan (Control of Entry) Act, 1952,
2. Applicants were arrested on 22.6.1989 by the Tando Adam Polices under section 3/4 of the said Act. They were accordingly challaned in the court and were remanded to jail since then they were in custody till released on bail under the orders of this court dated 01.7.1992.
3. I have heard Mr. Makhdoom Saifuddin Siddiqui learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Mohammad Zubair Qureshi, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Pakistan (Control of Entry) Act, 1952 is applicable only to Indian citizens and the applicants admittedly being not Indian nationals, the provisions of the said Act do not apply to the present case. He has pointed out that in many similar cases on this ground proceedings have been quashed by this court. In this connection he has relied upon judgments passed by this court in Cr. Misc. Applications Nos. 307/91, 877/91, 359/90, 22/91 and 23/91.
5. I have gone through the judgments referred to by the learned counsel and I fully agree with the view expressed by my learned brother Judges and hold that the Pakistan (Control of Entry) Act, 1952 is applicable only to the Indian citizens in its entirety and since according to prosecution version the applicants are allegedly Bengala-Deshies, the proceedings, initiated against them under the said Act are bad in law.
6. The next contention is that the police acted without authority from the Provincial Government as required by section 6 of the said Act, therefore the arrest as well as the prosecution against the applicants was illegal and without jurisdiction. In this respect reliance has been placed on the decision given in the case reported as Najmuddin Ahmad Jamali Vs. State (1988 P.Cr.L.J. 743) and unreported judgments in Cr. Misc. Applications No. 226/90 and 325/90.
7. In the above cited case, 1988 P.Cr.L.J. 743 it was held as under:-- "A plain reading of section 6 indicates that the offences specified under the Act are non-cognizable and no person can be arrested without a warrant for committing an offence under the Act by any person unless he is a person specified in the section who has been by a general rule or special order of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government specially empowered in this behalf.
Admittedly the applicant in the present case was not arrested by any such officer referred to above."
Subsequently this view was also followed in the unreported cases cited by the learned counsel and the proceedings were quashed. I am also in full agreement with the observations of my learned brother Mamoon Kazi, J. In the present case also there is no general or special order as contemplated by section 6 of the said Act, hence neither the applicants could be arrested nor prosecution could be started against them under the said Act.
8. The last submission of the learned counsel is that the maximum punishment provided for the alleged offence is twelve months whereas the applicants have remained in custody for about three years, therefore, the continuance of such proceedings will amount to abuse of process of court and are liable to be quashed.
9. In the case reported as The State Vs. Pario (1972 P.Cr.L.J. 915) it was held on under:- But the prosecution have, by their delaying tactics, indirectly punished the respondent for the aforesaid offence by keeping him in confinement for nearly 7 years without even concluding the trial. I feel that in the circumstances of this case it would be an abuse of the process of the Court if such proceedings are allowed to continue even for a day longer."
In another case reported in 1976 P.Cr.L.J. 159 the Hon'ble Judge of Lahore High Court in the circumstances that matter was pending against the petitioner for the last 12 years and in Court for 7 years and only 4 prosecution witnesses were examined, held such state of affairs to be deplorable and proceedings were accordingly quashed. Delay in justice is denial to justice. The maximum punishment in the present case for the alleged offence is twelve months and the applicants have admittedly remained in custody for about three years, as such, grave injustice would be caused if such, proceedings continue any longer and every such proceedings deserve to be quashed. Therefore, the proceedings in the present case in these circumstances and in view of above cited authorities are also liable to be quashed on this ground also.
10. Mr. Mohammad Zubair Qureshi, advocate for the State also conceded to the quashment of proceedings pending against the applicants.
11. In view of what I have said above, I quash the proceedings (FIR No.90/39) pending against the applicants. Applicants are on bail, their bail bond is discharged and surety papers may be returned to their surety. R & P may be returned to the concerned court.