1992 P Cr (PLP)

(i) satisfaction of the Tribunal, upon the report of a Police Officer or upon information; (ii) the substance of such report or information shall be recorded by the Tribunal. (iii) that there is reason to apprehend the commission of the act complained against; and (iv) that such commission of the act cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person. It is unnecessary to state how important and how valuable for the liberty of a subject the provisions with regard to arrest are. The satisfaction of a Tribunal for the issuance of warrant is not an empty formality. The issuance of warrant by the Tribunal, in disregard to the above requirements was thus illegal:"

4. No material is available on record which could justify the issuance of warrant of arrest against the applicant by the Tribunal.

5. Section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, provides:-- "Delivery of copy of report.

Every summons or warrant issued under section 5 shall be accompanied by a copy of the report and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under the same; Provided that the report shall briefly state: (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:"

6. The report filed by S.H.O. Beghdadi Police Station, did not state:-- (i) acts with which the applicant is charged, (ii) details of time and place of such acts, and (iii) general repute of applicant or any other allegation against him. As observed in Jan Muhammad v. The State reported in P L D 1981 Kar. 682, the order of Tribunal based on such report is without jurisdiction. This question was also examined by me in Inayat v. The State reported in 1989 P Cr. L J 1115, and was answered in the following words:-- "Like proviso to section 5, the proviso to section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, was not really a proviso in the accepted sense, but an independent legislative provision laying down the contents of the report to be served upon the person proceeded against. On the face of it the report filed by S.H.O. Sujawal Police Station, against the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to section 6 of the Sindh .Crimes Control Act, 1975. The S.H.O. Sujawal Police Station has tried to bring the case of the applicant within the mischief of clauses (xix), (xx) and (xxxi) of section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, but only vague allegations have been made with no details of time and place of such acts, as required under section

6. The report which is again the basis of proceedings under section 8 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, is intended to give sufficient notice to the person against whom the proceedings are drawn, of the accusation made against him. Therefore, the report must set forth the substance of accusation alleged against the person proceeded with. If this is not done, the person proceeded, against, cannot know till he comes to Tribunal precisely what he is charged with, and as no charge is drawn up in such proceedings, he may not know till the final order is passed, what his alleged fault is." Thus, the proceedings drawn against the applicant are liable to be quashed on this score alone.

7. No witness is, again, cited in the report submitted by S.H.O. Beghdadi Police Station and the solitary testimony of Athar Rasheed Butt, S.H.O. Beghdadi Police Station, will not be sufficient to take necessary action against the applicant under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. No doubt, the evidence of general reputation is relevant in a case of this nature, but it is highly unsafe to base order on such evidence alone. The weighty observations made by Z.A. Channa, J. in the case of Mehar Khan v. The State reported in 1975 P Cr. L J 257, are relevant in this behalf.

8. Having regard to the above legal position, I am clear in my mind that the proceedings drawn against the applicant under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, arc void ab initio - and the continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law. In the result the application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings pending against the applicant before S.D.M. City Sub-Division/Tribunal, Karachi, are hereby quashed. M.BA./B-225/K Proceedings quashed.