1. ABDUL QADIR HALEPOTA, J.-The petitioner Syed Imam Mehdi Shah has filed this constitution petition, wherein he has challenged the vices of the proceedings pending against him under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), in the Court of Tribunal and S. D. M., Civil Lines. Karachi.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he is in the habit of taking Charas out of Pakistan through Karachi, in contravention of the prohibition and restriction imposed under the law for the time being in force. He has also the reputation of habitually taking Charas out of Pakistan. Four instances pertaining to the smuggling of Charas out of country, were cited In the body of complaint, filed against the petitioner, by the Station House Officer, Defence Housing Society, Police Station, Karachi.
3. We have heard Mr. Abdul Wahid Abid the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho the learned Additional Advocate---General for the State.
4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that upon the allegations levelled against the petitioner, none of his acts as specified in the complaint fall within clause (xvii) or any other clause of section 14 of the said Act.
5. "(xvii) is in the habit of or has reputation of habitually, entering into or departing from or taking or bringing any goods out of or to Pakistan, in contravention of any prohibition or restriction under any law for the time being in force."
6. The perusal of this clause shows, that a person proceeded against, there. Under, should be either in the habit of, or have reputation of habitually, entering Into or departing from, or taking or bringing any goods out of or to Pakistan, in contravention of any prohibition or restriction under any law for the time being in force.
7. The learned counsel, thus submitted that the number of Instances in this case being too small, it would be incorrect to say that the petitioner is in the habit of taking Charas out of Pakistan, He further submitted that in the absence of testimony of witnesses who are chiefly conversant with the (petitioner, it could not be satisfactorily proved that he has the reputation of habitually taking Charas out of Pakistan. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel relied upon an earlier judgment pronounced by us. It is reported in PLD 1977 Kar. 582.
8. We have gone through the report under reference and we find, that in that case, a solitary instance was quoted, stating that the detenu therein, was arrested by police while he was carrying 160 tolas of Charas intending to deliver it at Air Port to some smuggler of Norcoties for sending the same out of Pakistan. The allegation was so vague that even time and place of arrest of the detenu were not mentioned therein. The other instance quoted in that case, related to the detenu being in illegal possession of Charas and opium, which were recovered from his house as a consequence of search conducted by Police. In the instant case, the position is entirely different. Four instances cited herein, show, that the petitioner had either smuggled or attempted to smuggle two suit- cases each time. Through the aid of loaders employed by Pakistan International Airlines. These instances are specific. The names of P. I. A. Loaders and other necessary particulars are given therein, and as many as thirteen witnesses are cited in the complaint. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for us to hold at this stage, that the petitioner is not in the habit of taking Charm out of Pakistan in contravention of prohibition and restriction under the law for the time being in force.
9. When a person has repeatedly acted in a particular way at intervals whether regular or irregular for such length of time as that we can predicate with reasonable assurance that he will continue so to act, we may affirm that this is his habit, This is what we also said regarding the meaning and import of the word "habit" in our earlier judgment referred to herein--above.
10. Before parting with this judgment, we would like to make it very clear, that none of the observations made by us hereinabove relating to the merits of the case of the petitioner, will be binding upon the tribunal, ware has taken cognizance of the proceedings against him. It will be for the tribunal to assess the evidence produced before it and arrive at its own conclusions according to law. All that we would like to say is that there is no material before us on the basis of which we could hold at this stage that clause (xvii) of section 14 of the said Act is not attracted to the case of petitioner.