Haji ALI MUHAMMAD SOLANGI vs TRIBUNAL/S. D. M., NAZ1MABAD, KARACHI
This constitutional petition challenges the cognizance taken by a Tribunal constituted under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, upon a complaint under section 14 of the said Act, on the ground that the police report disregarded the mandatory requirements of sections 4, 5, and 6 by lacking specific particulars regarding the time and place of the alleged acts. The core legal question was whether a mere list of pending cases and vague allegations in a police report satisfies the statutory requirement for particulars under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The High Court held that a mere list of cases cannot substitute for the mandatory statement of particulars required by section 6 of the Act, and cognizance taken without complying with these requirements cannot be sustained. The key principle laid down is that strict compliance with the statutory particulars is mandatory for initiating proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, and a vague police report containing only a list of past cases is legally insufficient.
- Does a mere list of pending cases in a police report satisfy the requirements of section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Can cognizance taken by a Tribunal under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 be sustained in the absence of compliance with section 6?
- Are vague allegations and a list of past cases sufficient particulars under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Section 14, Sind Crimes Control Act 1975
- Section 4, Sind Crimes Control Act 1975
- Section 5, Sind Crimes Control Act 1975
- Section 6, Sind Crimes Control Act 1975
- Section 488, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 117, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code
' FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-This Petition challenges the cognizance taken by a Tribunal, constituted under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, on a complaint made under its section 14 on the ground that it was in disregard of the mandatory requirement of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act. More particularly it was argued that the report submitted by the police was wholly vague, lacking in particulars and did not detail the time and place of the acts with which the petitioner was charged. We have seen the report and find that it contains vague allegation such as that the petitioner is a bully and a disorderly desperate person who had committed criminal offences. By way of particulars was given list of cases as follows :-
(1) Case F. I. R. No, 99/78 under section 488, P. P. C. Of Gulberg Police, Station, Karachi. This case is pending trial in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate.
(2) Complaint under section 107/117, Cr. P. C. Dated 18-1-1977 pending in the Court of S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi.
(3) Complaint under section 197/117, Cr. P. C. Dated 5-3-1977 pending in the Court of S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi.
(4) Complaint under section 137/117, Cr. P. C. Dated 3-10-1977 pending in the Court of S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi.
(5) Report under section 323/504, P. P. C. Vide Station Diary entry No, 34 dated 6-2-1978 of Gulberg Police Station, Karachi.
(6) Complaint under section 107/17, Cr. P. C. Dated 12-2-1976 ended in compromise.
(7) Report under section 323/504, P. P. C. Vide Station Diary No, 75, dated 15-10-1978 of Gulberg Police Station, Karachi.
2. Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to a decision by Mr. Justice Tufail Ali A. Rehman, C. J., (as he then was) reported in 1976 P Cr. L J 650 in which in relation to parallel section 5 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance it was held at a mere list of cases in which the petitioner was challaned cannot be a substitute for statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of the Ordinance, Section 6 of the Act like section 5 of the said Ordinance also provides for the same particulars. In numerous cases this Court has held that cognizance under the Act cannot be sustained in the absence of compliance of requirement of its section 6.
' We, therefore, allow this petition with costs.
Cited by 15 cases
- Mst. SHAMIM AKHTER vs THE STATE 1999 MLD 577
- Mst. SURRAYA vs THE STATE 1998 P Cr. L J 1308
- BAKHSHAL SHAH vs THE STATE 1997 P Cr. L J 921
- GHULAM HYDER SOLANGI vs THE STATE 1998 P Cr. L J 60
- SHAMSHAD AHMED QURESHI-- vs THE STATE 1994 PLD Karachi 115
- SHAMSHAD AHMED Qureshi vs THE STATE K.L.R 1994 Criminal Cases 1
- SAIN BUX vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 2298
- JAMES And 3 Others vs THE STATE and 7 others 1987 P Cr. L J 1345
- ABBAS ALI vs SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TANDO ALLAHYAR and anothers 1985 P Cr. L J 2837
- KHAN AFSAR vs THE STATE 1984 PLD Karachi 84
- ABDUL MANNA N vs THE TRIBUNAL A. C. & S. D. M., KARACHI AND ANOTHER--- 1981 P Cr. L J 1173
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE 1981 PLD Karachi 682
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs S. D. M. TRIBUNAL 1981 PLD Karachi 685
- ABDUL SATTAR Versus THE STATE 1994 PLD 192
- NISAR Versus THE STATE 1996 PCRLJ 102