1993 P Cr (PLP)

S. 8

Action under the Act can only be taken by a Tribunal constituted under S.3 of the Act

Authority taking action in the proceedings under the Act may be the S.D.M., but he is required to take action as Tribunal arid not as S.D.M. Imdad Ali Awan for Applicant. Zawar Hussain Jafferi. AA:-G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22ndSeptember, 1992. This application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicant Gulzar for quashment of the proceedings under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 pending against him before S.D.M. Rohri. I have heard Mr. Imdad Ali Awan learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A: G. for the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations as mentioned in the police report as well as in the order of S.D.M. are generate and vague. It is further submitted that Crime No.l of 1992 under section 382, P.P.C., which has been cited in the police report only is pending against the applicant, whereas in other cases the applicant has been acquitted/discharged. It is also submitted that not a single person from the public has been cited as witness against the applicant and that all the witnesses shown in the police report are police officials. In support of his contention he referred to a case reported as Muhammad Naseem Qureshi v. The State 1990 P Cr. L J 1249. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, AA.-G. for the State concedes the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the police report as well as the order of learned S.D.M., which show that the allegations are vague and general in nature inasmuch as no specific instance with time, date and place of the acts A complained of has been mentioned. It is also observed that in one case the, applicant is facing trial whereas in other cases he has been acquitted/discharged. It is also a fact that not a single person from the public has been cited as witness against the applicant. The police report also does not show that the applicant has ever been convicted in any case. It is pertinent to note that learned S.D.M. Rohri has made an order under section 8 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act calling upon the applicant to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute the bond with one, surety in the like amount for maintaining good behaviour for a period of 12 months in the capacity as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rohri. Such action, under Sindh Crimes Control Act, can only be taken by a Tribunal constituted under, section 3. of the said Act. The authority taking action in the proceedings under Sindh Crimes Control Act may be the S.D.M.; but he is required to take action as Tribunal and not as S.D.M. The S.H.O. Police Station Kandhra has also committed illegality in submitting the report for taking action against the applicant under Sindh Crimes Control Act to the S.D.M. and not to the Tribunal as is required under the Law. In the above circumstances I am of the opinion that continuance of the proceedings against the applicant before S.D.M./Tribunal Rohri is abuse of the process of the law. Consequently, the proceedings are quashed. N.H.Q./G-310/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed.