1999 P Cr (PLP)

By this criminal miscellaneous application, the applicant Muhammad Ashraf Solangi has prayed for the quashment of the proceedings of the Case No. 12 of 1998 under. section 14 of the Sindh Crime Control Act, 1975 pending before S.D.M./Tribunal, Mehar. The proceedings were initiated against the applicant by the S.D. M./Tribunal, Mehar on report submitted by S.H.O., Police Station Thariri Mohabat on 21-3-1998, complaining therein that the applicant is dangerous and habitual criminal and is involved in kidnapping for ransom and preaches against the Government and,' therefore, his remaining at large is hazardous to the general public because, nobody comes forward to give evidence against him. Except these general and vague allegations no particular instance was cited against the applicant except that the applicant is involved in two criminal cases viz. Crime No.5 of 1998 under section 217/34, P.P.C. and Crime No.6 of 1998 under sections 477-A/409 and 34, P.P.C. Two police officials beside the complainant are shown in the list of witnesses. The learned S.D.M./Tribunal on receipt of such report ordered for issuance of N.B.Ws. against the applicant as prayed by S.H.O. and adjourned the matter to 3-4-1998. The applicant had also filed an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. stating therein that the S.D.M./Tribunal Mehar had not accepted the surety though offered. The learned Additional Advocate-General who had waived the notice and raised no objection and the applicant was, therefore, granted bail and matter was fixed on 15-5-1998. On 15-5-1998 the learned counsel for the applicant and the Additional Advocate-General submitted that short point is involved in the case, therefore, the matter may be heard for final disposal and, therefore, the matter was heard for final disposal. The learned counsel for applicant submitted that there was no material whereby the proceedings under Sindh Crime Control Act could be initiated against the applicant as there was only general and vague allegations against the applicant and no specific instance was cited against the applicant as required under sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crime Control Act. Mere listing of some cases in the police report, cannot be substituted for the details of information required to be furnished under section 6 of the Sindh Crime Control Act, 1975. The learned counsel further submitted that applicant is a respectable citizen of Pakistan and is a Zamindar and also Nekmard of Solangi community. He has further contended that the applicant has been involved in the case as he had contested the elections on P.P.P. ticket against the sitting Chief Minister, Sindh and further argued that the criminal cases cited against the applicant are also an outcome of the political differences with the ruling party. Finally the learned counsel submitted that the proceedings may be quashed against the applicant. Mr. Mian Khan Malik, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for State did not controvert the point raised on behalf of the applicant and conceded that the proceedings in question are liable to be quashed as there was absolutely no material against the applicant to initiate the proceedings against the applicant and pendency.of such proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. I have considered the arguments and have examined the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the S.D.M./Tribunal was not legally bound to issue process upon mere filing of the police report but ought to have verified the same and have ensured that the report submitted by the police was complete in all respect containing all the material required under section 6 of the Sindh Crime Control Act. It further appears that the learned Tribunal has not applied its judicial mind before issuing? a warrant of arrest as person should be deprived of his liberty on frivolous applications of the police. I am fortified in my mind by the case Rajib Ali v. The State reported in 1994 PCr.LJ 2865 and Ghulam Hyder Solangi v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ

60. There are series of cases on the point that omission of acts with which the person complained against is charged and omission to give details of time and place of such act is fatal to the maintaining of the proceedings under the Act. In the case in hand no details of time and place in respect of vague allegations against the person complained against are furnished. I am of the view that a list of two cases cited against the applicant is not substitute for the? particulars to be given under the proviso to section 6 of the Act. The nature of the cases is different to the nature of allegations cited in the report. Three witnesses named in the report are also the police personnel. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am convinced that the order passed by the S.D.M./Tribunal under section 5 is based on substance extraneous to the report, in that, according to the aforesaid order of the S.D.M./Tribunal that the applicant is notorious, dangerous and desperate and his remaining at large without security, is hazardous, is clearly in disregard of provisions of section 4 of the Act. The S.H.O. Police Station Thariri Mohabat had absolutely no material to initiate the proceedings and the S.D.M./Tribunal, Mehar did not exercise the power in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, the proceedings before the S.D.M./Tribunal are not sustainable, I, therefore, allow this application and quash the proceedings of Case No. 12 of 1998 under section 4/14 of Sindh Crime Control Act pending before the S.D.M./Tribunal, Mehar. The applicant who is present on bail, his bail bond is hereby discharged. These are the reasons in support of the short order passed by me on 15-5-1998. N.H.Q./M-350/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed