1999 P Cr (PLP)

I have heard Mr. Shafi Muhammad Memon, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, A.A.-G. for the State. Mr. Shafi Muhammad Memon, has coatended that the allegations in the report are vague, false and baseless and they have no nexus with section 14 of the Act. The learned counsel submits that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act and the proceedings pending against him are mala fide. The learned counsel points out that murder case cited in the report has already resulted in acquittal of the applicant and previous proceedings against the applicant have also ended in his favour. The learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses cited in the report are only police officials and no private witness(s) has been cited in the report and as such it is a fit case for quashment of proceedings. The learned A.A.-G. has opposed prayer made in the criminal miscellaneous application. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the report and various orders, passed by the learned S.D.M./Tribunal and also the material placed on record. The report submitted by the S.H.O. concerned shows that the allegations contained in the report are vague and they are of sweeping nature. The only case cited in the reference is murder case which has no nexus with section 14/4 of Act. No recent case has been cited in the report and it is not disclosed in the reference as to why the proceedings were initiated against the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has produced true copy of the case diary, dated 13-3-1998, supported by the copy of judgment, dated 13-3-1998 Sessions Case No.433 of 1986, which shows that the accused persons including the applicant Muhammad Hussain were acquitted of the murder charge. The photostat copy of the order, dated 7-6-199.5, passed by S.D.M./Tribunal Dadu, placed on record, shows that proceedings earlier initiated against the applicant vide Tolo No.l of 1995 referred to in the present report, dated 19-2-1998 were ordered to be filed as it lacked the .ingredients of section 14/4 of the Act. It is surprising that despite this, the S.H.O. concerned again initiated the proceedings against the applicant without any fresh material or ground mentioning in the report only on general and vague allegations. Besides, the complaint/report contains no details of acts allegedly committed by the applicant nor time and place of commission of such acts is given therein. As such, there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. The witnesses cited in the report are all Police Officials and not a single independent or private person leas been cited as witness against the applicant. In the case of Amir Ali and 22 others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 30 his Lordship Mr. Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, quashed the proceedings in a number of cases holding that merely vague allegations against the accused such as of being bad character or a thief or a scoundrel or a Badmash would not be sufficient to initiate proceedings against hint under the Act. In the recent decision of this Court report as Haji Muhammad Ayoob v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 771 this Court quashed the proceedings under Act holding that taking the cognizance on the basis of a police report containing general and vague allegations and issuing non-bailable warrants by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction and it was in complete disregard of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act. Considering the entire material on thr, : word, contents of the report and various orders passed by the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that the report filed by the S.H.O. concerned is lacking in material particulars and, there was no justification for initiating proceedings against the applicant. There is also non-compliance of mandatory provisions contained in sections 4, 5 and 6 of Act. These proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14/4 of the Act, 1975 in the Court of S.D. M./Tribunal, Dadu, are hereby quashed. Above are the reasons for my short order, dated 18-5-1998, by which I allowed the present criminal miscellaneous application and quashed the proceedings pending against the applicant before the S.D. M./Tribunal, Dadu. H.B.T./M-323/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application allowed.