ALI BUX Versus STATE

1. The applicant has moved for quashment of the proceedings pending against him under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act (hereinafter to be mentioned as the Act) in the Court of Tribunal and S.D.M., Khairpur.

2. According to the police report, the applicant is a dangerous and desperate person, prepared to take any risk for performing a violent act. The applicant is also alleged to be habitual thief and abettor of thefts, robberies and kidnappings. The applicant has allegedly created panic amongst the people.

3. On receiving the police report, the S.D.M. and Tribunal, Khairpur took cognizance of the case. Under an order dated 13-11-1991 the Tribunal called upon the applicant to such cases, as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond in sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount for maintaining good behaviour for a period of two years. Under a subsequent order of same date, the Tribunal after examining S.H.O. Sobhodero Police, directed the applicant to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour till conclusion of the enquiry. After passing such order, the Tribunal remanded the applicant to jail custody on the ground that he was not able to furnish the sureties. Hence this application.

4. I have heard the applicant in person and Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi A.A: G. for State.

5. The applicant submitted in Court that he is involved in the case by the neighbouring Waderas. Learned A.A.-G. conceded that the material against the applicant is not sufficient for passing an order under section 14 of the Act.

6. Police report contains allegations against the applicant, which are vague and short of particulars. The acts allegedly committed by the applicant, which can justify branding him as "dangerous", have not been specified. The applicant is shown to be accused in one criminal case besides A being respondent in proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Names of the criminals being given shelter by the applicant, have not been given. Applicant is not a convict in any case. The only witness cited against him is an Inspector of Police.

7. Proceedings under section 14 of the Act were quashed on the ground of the allegations in the police report being general and vague, in the cases of LM Bux v. State P L D 1988 Kar. 599, Allah Rakhio v. State 1988 P Cr. L J 51, Amir Ali and others v. State 1988 P Cr. L J 30, Ali Bux v. S.D.M., Nausharo Feroz 1988 P Cr. L J 619 and Noor Ahmed v. S.H.O. and another P L D 1988 Kar. 648.

8. No private person is cited as a witness against the applicant. The Tribunal and S.D.M. has committed grave irregularities and illegalities. He passed order under section 8(3) of the Act only on the basis of evidence of the S.H.O. In said order the applicant was not ordered to furnish sureties, but was directed to execute a bond. Yet the applicant was remanded to custody on the ground that "he is not able to furnish the request". The Tribunal appears to have signed the order blindly without caring to go through them. This reflects badly on efficiency of the Tribunal and S.D.M. He seems to be an unscrupulous person and unfit to exercise powers of a Magistrate much less of a S.D.M.

9. The instances and particulars are required to be given in the show cause notice, as per the Proviso below section 6 of the Act. Such particulars are to be taken from the police report. The Tribunal acted illegally by remanding the applicant to custody and by passing the order under section 8(3) without any material being available before him except statement of Abdul Aleem who is Inspector and S.H.O. Sobho Dero. In the circumstances pendency of the proceedings under section 14 of the Act, against the applicant, amounts to abuse of the process of Court.

10. Consequently, this application is accepted and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14 of the Act, in the Court of the S.D.M. and Tribunal, Khairpur are hereby quashed.

11. N.H.Q./A-1398/K Proceedings quashed.