1982 P Cr (PLP)

Shahroz Ahmad Sarhandi for Appellant. Khadim Ali Shoro for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th June, 1981. This Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner above named in respect of the proceedings pending against Shahal son of Faqir Mohammad (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) challenges the cognizance taken by a tribunal constituted under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, on a complaint made under section 14 on the ground that it was in disregard of the mandatory requirement of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. It was particularly argued that the report submitted by the Police was wholly vague, lacking in particulars and did not detail the time and place of the acts with which the detenu was charged. I have seen the report and find that it contains vague allegations such as that the detenu usually stands on roads and teases boys, girls and women ; is a thief, receives stolen property and disposes of the same ; gets thefts committed often and is a patharidar and that he is a nuisance for the public and be is a dangerous badmash. By way of particulars was given a list of cases pending against him as follows :‑‑ (1) Proceedings No. 6/80 under section 109, Cr. P. C. (2) Crime No. 12/80 under sections 457 and 380, Cr. P.: C. (3) Proceedings No. 6/80 under section 110, Cr. P. C.

2. Mr. Pir Shahroz Ahmed Sarhandi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to a decision reported in P L D 198 Kar. 267, wherein it was held that a mere list of cases in which the detenwas challaned cannot be a substitute for statement of the particulars to be given under section 6 of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on 1977 P Cr. L J 257, 1977 P Cr. L J 746, the recent decision reorted in P L D 1981 Kar. 136 and a number of other decisions of our High Court in support of the view that cognizance under the Act cannot be sustained in the absence of compliance of requirements of its section 6 Mr. Khadim Ali Shoro, the learned counsel for the State has conceded that the report submitted by the Police against the detenu did not contain as required by section 6 of the Act the particulars or the time and place of the acts alleged against him, nor is the report accompanied by the copies of the F. I. R. or the copies of the complaint made against him by his neigbbours. For all these reasons he is unable to support the proceedings taken against the detenu. The petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.