1999 P Cr (PLP)

It has been contended that no specific instances were given. The allegations were vague, without date and time. The proceedings taken by the learned Tribunal were not in the line with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of sections 5, 6 and 8(3) of Sindh Crimes Control Act, Copy of the report was not supplied, as is evident from the diary, dated 31‑7‑1996. Section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act provides delivery of cope of report, every summon or warrant issued under section 5 shall be accompanied by a copy of report and such report shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summon or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under the same; provided that the report shall briefly state (i) the acts with Which the person complained against is charged; (ii) the details of time and place of such acts; and (iii) general repute of person complaint or such other allegation made against him. The report filed by S.H.O. Police Station Kalakot did not state (i) the act with which the applicant is charged, (ii) the details of time and place of such acts and (iii) general repute of the applicant or any other allegation against him. In the case of Jan Muhammad v. The State PLD 1981 Kar. 682 the order of the Tribunal based on such report was found to be without jurisdiction. The same question was also examined by Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J. (as he then was) in the case of Inayat v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1115 and was answered as follows:‑‑ "Like proviso to section 5, the proviso to section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 was not really a proviso in the accepted sense, but an independent legislative provision laying down the contents of the report to be served upon the person proceeded against. On the face of it the report filed by S.H.O. Sujawal Police Station, against the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The S.H.O. Sujawal Police Station, has tried to bring the case of the applicant within the mischief of clauses (xix), (xx) and (xxxi) of section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975; but only vague allegations have been made with no details of time and place of such acts, as required under section

6. The report which is again the basis of proceedings under section 8 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 is intended to give sufficient notice to the person against whom the proceedings are drawn, of the accusation made against him. Therefore, the report must set forth the substance of accusation alleged against the person proceeded with. If this is not done, the person proceeded against cannot know till he comes to Tribunal precisely what he is charged with and as no charge is drawn up in such proceedings, he may not know till the final order is passed what his alleged fault is." Thus, the proceedings drawn against the applicant are liable to be quashed on this score alone. Section 8(3)(b) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. 1975, whereunder the order dated 31‑7‑1996 was passed provides as under:‑‑

8. Proceedings.‑‑‑ (1) When the person complained against appears or is brought before the Tribunal in compliance with or in execution of, a summon or warrant, issued under section 5, the Tribunal shall proceed to inquire into the trying of the report upon which action has been taken and to take evidence as may appear necessary. (2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (3) Pending the completion of the inquiry under the section if the Tribunal considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of the commission of the act complained against, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing‑‑ (a) direct the person complained against to execute a bond, with or without sureties for maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or in default of execution until the inquiry is concluded; or (b) instead of taking bond for appearance of such person, order his detention for such period as may be specified or till the conclusion of the inquiry, provided that such detention shall not exceed two months unless his case has been referred to the Commissioner and the latter has, for reasons to be recorded in writing, agreed to such detention for a further period not exceeding four months." Reading the order, dated 31‑7‑1996 together with section 8 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, reproduced above, it is apparent that the order under subsection (3)(b) can be passed only after the person complained against appears or is brought before the Tribunal in compliance with, or in execution of summon or warrant issued under section

5. Faced with the above situation, learned State Counsel has frankly conceded and has not supported the proceedings taken by the learned Tribunal against the applicant. As a result of the above discussion, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act 1975 before the S.D,M. City/Tribunal, Karachi South are quashed. It may be observed that the above order is passed purely on technical grounds. There is, therefore, no bar for drawing fresh proceedings against the applicant keeping in view the above legal requirements. H.B.T./M‑409/K Application allowed.