HAJI ALI MUHAMMAD SOLANGI Versus TRIBUNAL S. D. M., NAZIMABAD

'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.

1. 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 18th January, 1977 pending in the Court of S. D. M. Liaquatabad, Karachi.

(3) Complaint under section 197/117, Cr. P. C. dated 5th March, 1977 pending in the Court of S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi.

(4) Complaint under section 107/117, Cr. P. C. dated 3rd October, 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 6th February 1978 of Gulberg Police Station, Karachi.

(6) Complaint under section 107/117, Cr. P. C. dated 12th February, 1976. Ended in compromise.

(7) Report under section 323/504, P. P. C. vide Station Diary No. 75, dated 15th October, 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 Nizamuddin v. State (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 that 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 sustain ed in the absence of compliance of requirement of its section 6.

We, therefore, allow this Petition with costs.

Petition allowed.