1985 P Cr (PLP)

It is submitted by Mr. Muhammad Kassim Mir Jat that the requirements of proviso of section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 have not been fulfilled inasmuch as the report does not state the details of time and place of the acts complained against. It may be stated that the requirements of the proviso are as follows:‑‑ "(i) the acts with which the persons complained against is charged; (ii) the details of time and place of such acts; (iii) general repute of person complained or such other allegation made against him." It is conceded by Mr. Kamaluddin that the details are missing from the report. It is further conceded that the ground taken in the application by the learned counsel for the applicant has substance in view of the decisions of this Court in Uris v. Tribunal and Sub‑Divisional Magistrate Kotri and 2 others P L D 1977 Kar. 506; Arsalla Khan v. District Magistrate (South) and Tribunal 1977 P Cr. L J 746; Shero alias Sher Muhammad v. The State P L D 1978 Kar. 368; Aftab Alam alias Metoo v. Tribunal A.C. and S.D.M. (Central), Karachi PLD 1978 Kar. 368; Hay Ali Muhammad Solangi v. Tribunal S.D.M. Nazimabad and another P L D 1980 Kar. 267; Shah Nazar Khan v. Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Malir Karachi and 2 others P L D 1977 Kar. 582; Muhammad Siddique v. The State P L D 1979 Kar. 229; Syed Abbas Ali Shah v. Sub‑Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal Tando Muhammad Khan and another 1979 P Cr. L J 303; Jan Muhammad v. The State P L D 1981 Kar. 682; Muhammad Siddique v. S.D.M. Tribunal P L D 1981 Kar. 685; Abdul Mannan v. The Tribunal A.C. and S.D.M. Karachi and another 1981 P Cr. L J 1173; Muhammad v. S.D.M. and Tribunal Mirpur Sakro and another 1983 P Cr. L J 439; Izzat Khan v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 353(1); Mahmood Ahmad (Muhammad Ahmed) v. Tribunal S.D.M. City Hyderabad P L D 1985 Kar.

187. I may however, here refer to the following observations of Z.A. Channa, J. in the case of Muhammad Siddique (Supra). "The mere fact that a person is suspected in some offence or offences or even that he was challaned in respect of certain offences would not be sufficient to bring his case within the purview of section 14 of the Act which in my humble view appears to envisage much more tangible proof in support of the unsocial activities alleged against such person." The learned Judge after referring to Noor Muhammad v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 1025 wherein it was held that more statement made by the S.H.O. in his report that the petitioner had a reputation of notorious and hazardous criminal without specifying instances of his being involved in any incident or breach of peace or acting in a desperate and dangerous manner mentioned in the report, and the mere citation in the report of five cases in which the petitioner was involved without indicating their result or state, was not sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner under section 110, Cr.P.C., he further observed that:‑ "In my humble view these observations apply with equal force to reports under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 because such reports are required to contain particulars of the acts complained against the person concerned as also the details of the time and place, of such acts. The mere mention in the police report of the cases in which a person is involved has likewise not been considered to be a requirement of the law for the purposes of action under the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1956. See Nizamuddin v. The State 1976 P Cr. L J 650." In the case of Hay Ali Muhammad Solangi which is a Division Bench case, Fukhruddin G. Ibrahim, J. relied on a decision given by Tufail Ali, A. Rehman, C.J. in Nizamuddin v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 650 wherein in relation to parallel section 5 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1969 it was held that a mere list of cases in which the petitioner was challaned cannot be a substitute of statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of the said Ordinance. Section 6 of the Act like section 5 of the said Ordinance also provides for the same particulars. It may be recalled that in this case a list of 7 cases was relied upon in the report by the police under section 14 of the Act. It may be pertinent if I also quote the observations of Z.C. Valiani, J. in Abdul Mannan v. The Tribunal A.C. and S.D.M. Karachi and another 1981 P Cr. L J 1173 which appear at page 1175 of the report. "It may further be noted, that the main allegations against the petitioner as mentioned in Annexure A/6 are regarding his alleged trading in import and sale of women but not a single case on this basis has been cited in the said report, having been initiated against the petitioner. Furthermore, giving of list of the cases in which the petitioner has been challaned cannot be a substitute for statement of petitioners to be given under section 5 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1976 for taking cognizance on such report and as such cognizance taken on such basis, cannot be considered to be proper. In this view of mine, I am fully supported by D. B. decision of this Court reported in P L D 1980 Kar. 267." In the present case only reference has been made to three cases without indicating their result or stage and thus the case falls within rule laid down in Noor Muhammad v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 1025 and other above cited cases. I, therefore, quash the proceedings. S.A Petition accepted.