1997 P Cr (PLP)

Ss. 5, 8 & 6 proviso

Proceedings against a person under Sindh Crimes Control Act

Essentials

Omission to mention the acts charged against a person

Effect

Omission to mention the acts with which the persons complained against is charged and omission to give details of time and place of each of such acts is fatal to the maintaining of the proceedings under the Act. Bhajan Das Tejwani for Applicant. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A. -G. for the State Applicant Ghulam Shabbir has filed this petition for quashment of the proceedings pending against him under Sindh Crimes Control Act (hereafter to be mentioned as the Act in Court of the Tribunal and S.D. M., Sukkur. As per the police report the applicant was a vagabond who indulged in thefts and who provided shelter to the criminals. It was added that the applicant had no ostensible means of livelihood and he was living on illegal earnings. It was further alleged that the applicant was hazard and terror for public and nobody was prepared to give evidence against him and that his remaining outside the jail was hazardous for the public. On receiving police report, learned Tribunal and S.D.M., Sukkur passed an order against the applicant under section 14 of the Act on 29-12-1990. On the next date learned Tribunal after recording statement of the S.H.O. remanded the applicant to custody for want of surety. Hence this petition. Mr. Bhajandas learned counsel for the applicant argued that there were general and vague allegations made against the applicant in the police report 4ttd that the applicant ad, not been convicted for any offence and that the particulars required under the proviso below section 6 of the Act had not been given. It was also argued that learned Magistrate could not have passed order under section 14 of the Act before recording evidence and that the applicant could not be remanded to jail without passing an order under section 8(3) of the Act. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi learned A.A.-G. did not controvert the point raised on behalf of the applicant and conceded that proceedings in question required to be quashed. Section 5 of the Act enjoins upon the Tribunal on receiving report to issue a summons requiring the person proceeded against to appear before such Tribunal and if the person proceeded against is in custody to issue warrant for his production before the Tribunal. Such warrant or summons shall be accompanied by a copy of report which shall briefly state the acts with which the person complained against is charged, the details of time and place of such acts and general reputation of the person complained or such other allegations made against him, as per the proviso below section 6 of the Act. Omission to mention the acts with which the person complained against is charged and omission to give details of time and place of such acts is fatal to the maintaining of the proceedings under the Act. In the case of Kirishin v Tribunal and S.D.M. City, Hyderabad and another 1980 PCr.LJ 1198 no details of time and place in respect of vague allegations against the person complained against were furnished and the proceedings were quashed. In the case of Ali Muhammad Solangi v. Tribunal and S.D.M. and another 1980 PCr.LJ 672 the view taken was that cognizance under the Act cannot be sustained in the absence of compliance of the requirement of its section

6. In the case of Ali Bux v. S.D.M., Naushero 1988 PCr.LJ 619, Hyder alias Sindhi v. State and others 1986 PCr.LJ 2526, Noor Muhammad v. S.H.O. and another PLD 1986 Kar. 648, Amir Ali and others v State 1986 PCr.LJ 30 the allegations against the person complained against were vague and general in nature, without mentioning any specific instances or details of any specific crime or time and date and place of such crimes allegedly committed and the proceedings were quashed. In the present case the applicant is said to have been challaned in a case under section 382 of P.P.C. Even if a list of cases in which the person complained against is challaned is given, that would not be a substitute for the particulars to be given under the proviso below section 6 of the Act as observed in the case of Nizamuddin v. State 1976 PCr.LJ

650. In the present case the particulars as required under the proviso below section 6 of the Act have not been given and learned Magistrate has remanded the applicant to custody without recording a finding to the effect that immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of the commission of an act complained against, in terms of subsection (3) of section 8 of the Act. The Magistrate does not appear to have followed in letter and spirit and provisions contained by sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act. For the foregoing reasons the proceedings in question stand quashed. These are reasons for my short order, dated 16-5-1991 by which I had accepted this petition and had quashed the proceedings pending against the applicant I under section 14 of the Act. H.B.T./G-399/K Petition accepted.