SIKANDAR ALI Versus THE STATE
1. S.H.O. Police Station, Sijawal submitted report under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 stating therein that applicant is a thief and has got connections with thieves and gets thefts committed and that he has got connections with the notorious criminals. Applicant gets persons abducted and receives ransom for release of abductees and gives the same to the dacoits and provides shelter, food and weapons to the notorious dacoits, applicant is involved in Crime No.144 of 1994 under section 14 of Tazir of Miro Khan, Police Station. Applicant is hazardous and has created terror in public and because of his nefarious activities, no public person comes forward to depose against him and that if he remains at large, there is every likelihood that he would continue detrimental and nefarious activities and would create law and order situation.
2. On receipt of this report, learned S.D.M., Shahdadkot on 16-10-1995 recorded statement of Irshad Hussain Shahani, S.H.O. Sijawal. The applicant was already in jail custody in Proceeding No.l of 1995 under M.P.O. and Superintendent, District Jail was communicated that these proceedings are pending against the applicant and he may not be released.
3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Afzal Soomro, learned counsel for the applicant who has contended that applicant is a well-known Zamindar and businessman of Taluka Miro Khan paying land revenue for about Rs.25,000 per annum and is also an income-tax payee to the tune of Rs.8,000 per annum. Involvement of the applicant in Crime No. 144 of 1994 of Police Station, Miro Khan under section 14, Tazir is also mala fide with ulterior reasons as the complainant in the above case is President of P.P.P., Kot Lal Bux Mahesar. Applicant is victim of political rivalry as he is member of Pakistan Muslim League (N). Allegations contained in report are indefinite and lacking in material particulars. Applicant has been Chairman of Union Council, Dhangano Mahesar from 1979 to 1987 and as member of District Council, Larkana and also Chairman, Taluka Council, Miro Khan from 1979 to 1983. That learned Tribunal has not complied with the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act for holding independent enquiry as contemplated under the Act. That order under secti6n 8(3)(a) and (b) of Sindh Crimes Control Act has not been passed. Proceedings initiated against the applicant are unwarranted by law.
4. Mr. Muhammad Afzal Soomro referred (1) 1977 PCr.LJ 746, D.B. decision of this Court. Learned Judge Mr. Z.A. Channa (as his Lordship then was) observed "that the report submitted by the police against the petitioner did not contain as required by section 6 of the said Act, the particulars or the time and place of the acts alleged against him, nor is the report accompanied by the copies of the F.I.R., or the copies of the complaint made against him by his neighbours".
(2) 1990 PCr.LJ 1249, learned Judge has held "that bare reading of the report shows that the allegations are vague and general in nature inasmuch as no specific instances with time, date and place of the acts complained of have been mentioned in the report. The cases mentioned in the list of the case are still sub judice before the Court. There is no allegation that the applicant has ever been convicted for committing any substantive offence."
5. ' It has been constantly held that essential requirement of the Act are that report should briefly state (1) The acts with which the person complained against is charged, (2) Details of time and place of the said acts. (3) The general repute of the person complained or such other allegations made against him in the case beforehand these provisions have not been complied with. Mere mention of the fact that applicant had a reputation of notorious and hazardous criminal, without specific instances of his involvement or breach of peace or acts. Single case is shown as pending before the Court in which complainant is reported to be President of P.P.P., Kot Lal Bux Mahesar. The case being pending is sub judice. Inference against the applicant, of the above case under section 14, Tazir Act, is not to be drawn. The authorities cited by Mr. Muhammad Afzal Soomro are applicable and relevant to the facts of the present case.
6. Mr. Isserdas, learned counsel for Additional Advocate-General does not controvert the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and has rightly conceded that the learned Tribunal on receipt of report from the police, issued on-bailable process against the applicant without holding independent enquiry as contemplated under sections 5 and 6 of the Act. No specific instance has been mentioned in the report. The applicant is reported to be Zamindar and member of Pakistan Muslim League (N), which is in opposition against the Government of the day. The detention of the applicant under M.P.O. and subsequent process issued by the learned Tribunal without holding independent enquiry suggests that learned Tribunal acted mechanically without applying its independent judicial mind. The learned counsel for Additional Advocate-General has rightly conceded and raised no objection if the application is granted and the proceedings are quashed.
7. I have perused the material placed with the record. Learned S.D.M./ Tribunal issued non-bailable warrants on the report of police without holding independent enquiry. The report itself, submitted by the police, is vague and there is no mention of specific instance in it. No private person has been shown as witness in the report. Prosecution does not allege any previous conviction against the applicant. Under these circumstances, for the foregoing reasons, I allow this application. Consequently proceedings pending in the Court of learned S.D.M. and Tribunal, Shahdadkot stands quashed. Order accordingly.
8. Applicant is on bail, his bail bond is discharged.
9. By my short order, I have quashed the proceedings on 25-8-1996 and these are the reasons for the same.
10. N.H.Q./S-48/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed.