1997 PLP 1174 (MLD)

Applicant Ghulam Hussain Soomro has been sent up by S.H.O., Police Station, Dakhan, Taluka Garhi Yasin, District Shikarpur to be proceeded against under the provisions of section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act in the Court of S.D.M., Garhi Yasin. Such report was made by the S.H.O. on 23‑7‑1995 and on receipt of the report, the S.D.M. Garhi Yasin immediately on the same day issued warrants of arrest against the applicant. On the next day Le 24‑7‑1995 an order under section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act was passed by the S.D.M., Garhi Yasin who is also a Tribunal for proceedings under Sindh Crimes Control Act. In the order under section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, the S.D.M. mentioned that on receiving the information from S.H.O Police Station, Dakhan, he was issuing this order calling upon the applicant to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 for maintaining good behaviour for a period of two years with two sureties in the like amount. The further contention was that the sureties should be respectable persons and should be solvent and should be able to control the activities of the applicant to the satisfaction of the Court. The applicant has challenged the proceedings and has filed this application invoking the powers of this Court under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C., and has requested for the quashment of the entire proceedings including the order passed by the S.D.M. under sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. The contents of the police report are to the effect that the applicant is a thief, a harbourer of the thieves, disposer of the stolen properties on receiving "Bhung money" and that he is associated with the gang of criminals who wanders with deadly weapons. It is also mentioned in the police report that the applicant was such a notorious criminal that nobody was prepared to publicly come forward to give evidence against him and that his remaining outside jail was hazardous to the public. At the bottom of the report, the police was required to give details of his previous criminal record but since there was no previous criminal record against the applicant, the S.H.O. has written as under:‑‑ "There are general complaints against the applicant from the public living within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dakhan. " The learned S.D.M. in his order under section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act merely repeated, in the precise form, the allegations in the police report and passed the order under section 6, Sindh Crimes Control Act. Provisions of section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 require that on receiving the report from the police, the Tribunal shall issue summons or warrants for production of the person reported against before it when there is reason to apprehend the commission of the act complained against such person, and that such commission of the act cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of that person. From the contents of the police report and from the contents of the order passed under section 5 of Sindh Crimes Control Act by the Tribunal in this case, I do not find that sufficient reasons were placed before the Tribunal by the police so that the Tribunal was obliged to pass an order under section 5 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, as contemplated by section 6 of the Act. The provisions of section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 require that every summon or warrant issued under section 5 of the Act shall be 1ompanied by a copy of the police report and a proviso to section 6 of the Act provides that such police report shall state as under:‑‑ (i) The acts with which the person complained against is charged; (ii) The details of time and place of such acts; (iii) General repute of person complained or such other allegations made against him. The requirements shown in the proviso to section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 if had not been complied with, and the report was lacking such details, the cognizance of the proceedings had not been legally taken by the Tribunal. When the allegations against the person proceeded are vague and general in nature inasmuch as no specific instance, with time, date and place of the acts complained had been mentioned in the report, and the person complained against was not alleged to be a previous convict of any substantive offence, the proceedings under Sindh Crimes Control Act were not properly initiated and, therefore, the same were liable to quashment. One such case on the point is the case of Muhammad Nasim Qureshi v. The State reported in 1990 PCr.LJ 1249. In the present case, the applicant has not been even alleged to be a previous convict. The specific instances and their time, dates and places are lacking in the police report as well as in the contents of the order passed under section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. From the plain reading of the police report as well as the contents of the orders passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the same are of general nature and can safely be termed as "vague" due to lack of their details. The applicant is not previously involved in any case and there is no mention that any report was ever lodged against the applicant prior to the police report in these proceedings. There is no list of witnesses given by the police to the Tribunal to be examined by the police. Rather, there is mention that nobody was ready to give evidence against the applicant implying thereby that police was relying merely on its report which is neither supported by any document nor by the list of witnesses. Under these circumstances, the learned Additional Advocate‑General has also conceded that the proceedings against the applicant have not been legally initiated by the police and the cognizance taken by the S.D.M. and Tribunal is also not in accordance with law. I therefore, hold that the proceedings before the S.D.M. and Tribunal will result in abuse of process of Court if allowed to proceed further. Consequently this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed and using the powers under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C., I hereby order that the proceedings initiated against the applicant before the S.D.M. and Tribunal under the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act are hereby quashed. N.H.Q./G‑14/K Proceedings quashed.