ALLAH RAKHIO Versus THE STATE

1. Applicant Allah Rakhio son of Imam Ali Jagirani of village Jamal Jagirani Taluka Rohri has challenged the proceedings, action and orders passed against the applicant by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Rohri initiated on the report made by the S.R.O. Kandhra on 24‑5‑1987. The perusal of the report which is made the basis to initiate the proceedings in question and congizance taken and the orders passed reveal that the learned S.D.M. has not applied his judicious mind to the matter before taking action. The learned S.D.M. received the report on 24‑5‑1987 on the same day. He examined the S . H . O . and issued process in the form of N . B . warrants against the applicant and all proceedings were concluded and detention order was passed on the same day which is against the, spirit of law.

2. I have heard Mr. Abbasi Abdul Majeed, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. The report does not contain any specific allegation, no date or time is mentioned and the report is based wholly on vague allegations lacking in particulars and the instances. In the report only two cases are cited namely: crime No. 10 of 1984 under section 392, P.P.C. and crime No. 22 of 1987 under section 13‑D of Arms Ordinance in which the applicant is shown to have been challaned but the ultimate disposal of both these cases or the stage is not given. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that compliance of the provisions of section 6 of the Sind Crime Controls Act, 1975 is not there as such this violation of mandatory requirement and non‑compliance of the same, the cognizance could not be taken by the S.D.M. In support of his contention he has cited the reported cases of this Court 1985 P Cr. L J 2834, 1986 PCr.LJ 30 and P L D 1986 Kar. 648 and has based his arguments on the recent decision reported in 1987 P Cr. L J 2010. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and gone through the decisions relied upon which support the contention of the learned counsel.

3. Mr. Amanullah Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for State has frankly conceded that the matter requires interference/quashment of the proceedings and I am also of the same view.

4. The violation of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act 1975 being mandatory in nature, the cognizance taken orders passed by S.D.M. are not justified. In view of the above position Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 721 of 1987 is allowed and the proceedings and orders passed against the applicant Allah Rakhio son of Imam Ali Jagirani under Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 before the S. D . M., Rohri cannot be sustained under the law and are hereby quashed. These are the reasons for the short order passed by me on 28‑9‑1987.

5. M. Y. H./A‑173/K Proceeding quashed.