1988 P Cr (PLP)

On receipt of the above complaint the learned S.D.M. passed the following order:‑‑ "Report under section 14, Sind Crimes Control Act received today. Respondent Ali Bux Mangrio is not produced. The S.H.O. Kandiaro has prayed that N.B.Ws. may be issued against the respondent, as his attendance could not be effected easily. Request allowed. Hearing fixed for 6‑8‑1986 at camp Kandiaro. " The present application is for quashment of the above proceedings. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Hyder A. Memon, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro, learned counsel appearing for the State. It was contended by Mr. Ghulam Hyder A. Memon Advocate that the proceedings were mala fide and false. That the allegations against the applicant were vague and general in nature. No instance, time, date and place of acts complained have been given in the complaint. That there is not a single witness cited from the public and all the witnesses are subordinates of the complainant. That the case mentioned at serial Nos. 1 had ended in acquittal, while cases mentioned at serial Nos. 2 and 3 were pending against the applicant when the proceedings under Sind Crimes Control Act were initiated, and therefore they could not be made basis for prosecution of the applicant. That there was non‑compliance of sections 5‑6 of the Act. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro, learned counsel appearing for the State in view of the above circumstances has contended that there were no grounds for initiating the proceedings against the applicant and the learned S . D . M . had taken cognizance mechanically. He had no objection if the proceedings were quashed. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel, and have gone through the documents produced by the applicant alongwith quashment application. Admittedly the allegations made in the complaint are vague and general in nature. No details with time, date and place of the alleged acts committed have been mentioned. There were no reasons for the learned S.D.M. to issue N.B.Ws. Even the F.I.Rs. of the cases mentioned in the list of cases were neither submitted to the Court nor supplied to the applicant. Even the complaint does not show whether the applicant was ever convicted of any crime. The, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the applicant was acquitted in the case mentioned at serial No. 1 while the cases mentioned at serial Nos. 2 and 3 were pending against the applicant at the time proceedings were initiated against him. From the facts and circumstances of the cases it appears that the learned S. D . M . 'has acted mechanically and did not apply his mind to the facts of the present case while issuing N.B.Ws. against the applicant. In Jan Muhammad v. The State P L D 1981 Karachi 682 it was held by this Court:‑‑. "In view of the proviso to section 5 Act, a Tribunal can issue warrant only when there was an apprehension that the commission of the act complained against cannot be prevented otherwise, than by arrest of the accused. Since no reasons were stated for adopting such course, in complete disregard of provisions of section

5. Such an order has been consistently held by this Court to be without lawful authority." It was further held in the above decision that:‑‑ "Section 6‑‑Essential‑‑Requirements of‑‑Report of Police Officer not stating facts with which person complained against charged, details of time and place of such acts and general repute of person complained against, Order of Tribunal based on such report held without jurisdiction." In the case of Muhammad Siddique v. S.D.M./Tribunal P L D 1981 Karachi 685 it was held:‑

"Section 5 ‑‑ Issue of non‑bailable warrants of arrest‑‑Tribunal not recording any reasons for issuance of warrant instead of summons, Order of Tribunal, held, in disregard of Provisions of section 5 and liable to be quashed." It was further held, sections 5, 6 and 14. "Report of Police Officer neither specifying clauses of section 14 under which alleged acts fell nor stating date, time and place when and where the alleged acts were committed, proceedings initiated on such report, held in disregard of provisions of sections 5 and

6. Mere fact that person is suspected of some offence or offences, or even he was challaned in respect of certain offences, held, not sufficient to bring case within purview of section 14 and proceedings initiated declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect." In Muhammad Sadiq v. S.D.M. Malir Tribunal City Court PLD 1981 Kar. 136) it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that:‑‑ "Sections 5, 6 and 14 ‑‑ Report submitted before Tribunal not complying with mandatory requirements of section 6‑‑Copy of report and details of acts complained against not supplied to accused‑‑Assumption of cognizance and consequent proceedings, held, without lawful authority." In view of the above discussion and the legal position I am of the considered view that the proceedings initiated, cognizance taken, and N.B.Ws. issued against the applicant were mala fide, illegal and without lawful authority. I, therefore, quash the above proceeding pending against the applicant before the S.D.M. Naushahro Ferozel under section 14 of Sind Crimes Control Act. M.Y.H./A‑239/K Proceedings quashed.