1993 P Cr (PLP)

(i) the acts with which the person complained 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.

4. The report filed by S.H.O. Sher Shah 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.

5. 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 6 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.

6. Section 8(3)(b) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, whereunder the order dated 19-7-1992 was passed provides as under:-- "

8. Proceedings.

(1) When the person complained against appears or is brought before the Tribunal in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 5, the Tribunal shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the report upon which action has been taken, and to take evidence as may appear necessary. (2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (3) Pending the completion of the inquiry under the section if the Tribunal considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of the commission of the act complained against, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,-- (a) direct the person complained against to execute a bond, with or without sureties for maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or in default of execution until the inquiry is concluded, or (b) instead of taking bond for appearance of such person, order his detention for such period as may be specified or until the conclusion of the inquiry provided that such detention shall not exceed two months unless his case has been referred to the Commissioner and the latter has, for reasons to be recorded in writing, agreed to such detention for a further period not exceeding four months."

7. Reading the order dated 19-7-1992 together with section 8 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, reproduced above, it is apparent that an order under subsection (3)(b) can be passed only after the person complained against appears or is brought before the Tribunal in compliance with, or in execution of, a summon or warrant, issued under section

5. No doubt, the applicant was produced in custody on 13-7-1992 but on the day when the witnesses were examined and the order purported to have been passed under section 8(3)(b) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 was passed, he was not produced before the Tribunal. The proceedings taken against the applicant at his back, therefore, have no legal sanctity.

8. Faced with the above situation the learned counsel for State has very little to say. Accordingly the application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., is allowed and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14 of the Sindh Crime Control Act, 1975, before S.D.M./Tribunal, S.I.T.E., Karachi, are quashed.

9. It is needless to observe that the above order is passed purely on technical grounds, there is, therefore, no bar for drawing up fresh proceedings against the applicant keeping in view the above legal requirement. N.H.Q./T-160/K Proceedings quashed.