1984 P Cr (PLP)

3. The prosecution have been challenged on the ground that the allega tions are vague and that no case for action under section 14 of the said Act had been made out. It is further alleged that non‑bailable warrant could not have been issued against the applicant without first complying with section 5 of the said Act.

4. Copies of the order‑sheets, dated 12th November, 1981 and 16th November, 1981 have been produced by the applicant alongwith his appli cation which indicate that non‑bailable warrant was issued in contravention of the provisions of section 5 of the said Act. This section provides that summons shall be issued in the first instance by the Magistrate. He could, however, issue non‑bailable warrant against oe person reported against, provided his case was covered by the proviso to section 5 of the said Act which runs as under: "Provided that whenever it appears to such Tribunal, upon the report of a Police Officer or upon other information (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Tribunal), that there is reason to apprehend the commission of the act complained against and that such commission of the act cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Tribunal may, at any time issue a warrant for his arrest." From the order‑sheet it is clear on the face of it that the learned Magistrate did not give reasons for issuance of non‑bailable warrant in the first instance instead of summons.

5. The order dated 16th November, 1981 further shows that copies of F.I.Rs and challans etc. were not despatched to the applicant alongwith the non‑bailable warrant which was mandatory under section 5 of the said Act. These copies were supplied to him when he was produced in custody before the learned Magistrate on 16th November, 1981. The proceedings were, therefore, ab inito void.

6. In the report under section 14 of the said Act no specific instances have been cited to show that the applicant was desperate or dangerous. Only a list of five cases has been given from which no inference can be drawn about the character of the applicant till the cases are pending before the Courts concerned. None of cases is said to have been decided. Thus, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations mentioned in the report under section 14 of the said Act do not bring the applicant within the mischief of any of the provisions of the said Act. In support of this plea the learned counsel has relied on the following cases:‑ (1) Aftab Alim alias Matoo v. Tribunal and A.C. 8 S.D.M. (Central) Karachi P L D 1978 Kar. 305; (2) Shero alias Sher Muhammad v. The State P L D 1978 Kar. 368; (3) Hussain Bux v. District Magistrate Larkana P L D 1978 Kar. 630; (4) Awal Shah v. The State P L D 1978 Kar. 662; and (5) Fazal Illahi v. Assistant Commissioner tt S.D.M. Karachi P L D 1978 Kar.

730. Mr. A.A. Muhammadally the learned Asstt. A.‑G. has frankly conceded that the proceedings started by the learned S.D.M. under section. 14 of the said Act are ab initio void. I agree with the learned Asstt,,l A.‑G and hold that the proceedings started by the learned S.D.M. on the report of S.H.O. Landi Colony Police Station, Karachi are liable told be quashed for the reasons that mandatory provisions of sections 5 and 6 have not been complied with and further that from the report of the S. H. O. no case is made out for action against the applicant under the said Act. The application is, therefore, allowed and the proceedings are quashed. Proceedings quashed