2000 P Cr (PLP)

This petition .under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., has been filed by applicant Tanveer with prayer for quashment of Case No. Nil of 1998. The State v. Tanveer Ahmed, under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, pending inquiry before the learned S.D.M. and Tribunal Model Colony, Karachi (East): Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the police report, dated 8-7-1998 or even the statement of S.H.O. recorded before the Tribunal on 11-7-1998 do not contain any particulars relating to date, time and place of the incident alleged against the applicant. He contends that there are general allegations levelled against the applicant that he is a terrorist and involved in a number of cases. The order of the learned S.D.M. passed on the report of the S.H.O. is also bad in law and has been passed in a mechanical manner without caring to see whether provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act were complied or not. The applicant has been acquitted in a number of cases including the two murder cases shown in the list and that he is not a previous convict. The learned counsel has lastly urged that involvement of a person in some cases, or by -terming him as a terrorist would by no means be a sufficient ground to initiate proceedings under this Act. He has placed reliance on 1998 PCr.LJ 60 and 1998 PCr.LJ 1038. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose the prayer, of the applicant on the; ground that there is only general allegations ,against the applicant of being a terrorist and a dangerous person. He has fairly conceded that there is violation of provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act and in view of a number of decisions of this Court the quashment proceedings pending against the applicant would meet the ends of justice. On perusal of the record, it appears that no specific incident relating to the criminal act of the applicant has been quoted. Merely labelling a person as terrorist or dangerous would not form a ground for initiating such proceedings. The provision of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act are mandatory in nature. Learned S.D.M./Tribunal appears to have acted mechanically and without applying his mind to the police report which is further evident from a letter Annexure "A/3" sent by S.D.P.O. Sharia Faisal, Karachi. The learned S.D.M./Tribunal appears to have failed to act independently. Since the proceedings initiated against the applicant are in violation of provision of sections 5 and 6 of the Act, the same are hereby quashed. The applicant is stated to be on bail. His bail bond and that of his surety stand discharged H. B. T./T-2/K Proceedings quashed