RAMZAN vs SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE and another
This matter concerns a criminal revision petition challenging proceedings initiated against the applicant under the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal lawfully initiated proceedings based on a police report containing vague, general allegations without adhering to the procedural safeguards mandated by the Act. The Court held that the proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction and lawful authority, as the Magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Act, such as issuing summons before warrants, providing copies of the report, and establishing that the alleged acts were frequent or habitual. The Court emphasized that the Sindh Crimes Control Act is a special statute that encroaches upon individual liberty; therefore, it requires strict observance of its procedural rules and conditions before cognizance is taken. Vague allegations of being a 'badmaash' or 'dangerous,' or the mere pendency of one or two criminal cases, are insufficient grounds to initiate such proceedings. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against the applicant.
- Can proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 be initiated based on vague and general allegations of being a 'badmaash' or 'dangerous'?
- Is the mere pendency of one or two criminal cases sufficient ground to initiate proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Does the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 require the strict observance of procedural rules and conditions before a Tribunal can take cognizance of a matter?
- Are non-specific allegations regarding the frequency and habitual nature of acts sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a Tribunal under the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Section 5, Sindh Crimes Control Act 1975
- Section 6, Sindh Crimes Control Act 1975
- Section 8, Sindh Crimes Control Act 1975
- Section 14, Sindh Crimes Control Act 1975
ORDER
1. ' The proceedings against the applicant Raman are initiated under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to an Act), by S.D.M. And Tribunal Kamber, District Larkana on the basis of a report, dated 13-3-1997 submitted by C.I.B./S.H.O. Ghulam Abbass Chandio of Police Station Kamber.
2. ' The allegations as levelled in report are to the effect that the applicant is desperate and dangerous and the thieves of far-off places visit him to whom he provides the meals and arms and ammunitions and he is dealing with narcotics and that his remaining at large would be torture for the general public. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of this report, issued N.B.Ws. Against the applicant. It is contended that the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal did not comply with the provisions of sections 5, 6, 8 and 14 of the Act. Inasmuch as the N.B.Ws. Were issued in the first instance against the applicant without showing the alleged act which was apprehended and the commission of said act could not be prevented' otherwise than by the immediate arrest of the applicant. The provision of section 5, reveals, that in the first instance only summons are to be issued.
3. Furthermore, section 6 indicates that the summons or warrants issued under section 5 shall be accompanied by a copy of the report and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving the said process. It is further contended that no offence is shown in the report which could attract the applicability of section 14 of the Act and no clause of section 14 of the Act is attracted. Almost all the clauses of section 14 show that the acts of the present applicant should be frequent and habitual but the learned Tribunal appears to have not applied the mind before initiating the proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act.
4. ' In view of the above, the learned Asstt. A.-G. Has very frankly and candidly stated before me that he is not in position to support the action of learned S.D.M. And Tribunal.
5. ' The report submitted by SILO. Against applicant is based on vague and general allegations in which the details of acts, time or place of occurrence are also not mentioned. The vague allegations that the applicant is thief, desperate, dangerous or a Badmaash would not be sufficient to initiate proceedings against the applicant under this Act. Merely back pendency of one or two criminal cases against the applicant would not be a sufficient ground to sustian the proceedings against applicant under this Act.
6. In fact this is a special statute which makes inroads upon liberty of individuals and it is to be subjected to a strict observance of the rules and conditions mentioned in the Act, before taking cognizance and exercising jurisdiction by the Tribunals. In the case in hand the report shows that one criminal case was pending against the applicant and only two police officers are shown to be the witnesses against him.
7. ' The reliance is placed in the case of Nisar v. The State reported in 1996 PCr.LJ page 102, 1998 PCr.LJ.
8. Page 195 Aijaz Dahar v. The State and Amir Ali and 22 others reported in 1986 PCr.LJ page 30. In all the-above said reported cases the proceedings were quashed on the same grounds as stated' above.
9. Under the circumstances I am of the view that the proceedings initiated against the applicant by learned S.D.M. And Tribunal, Kamber and the cognizance taken by him were without jurisdiction and lawful authority. The proceedings are, therefore, quashed.