FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM J.---This Constitutional petition is directed against the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tando Muhammad Khan who is a Tribunal constituted under the said Act upon a report dated 13-7-1977 made by the S. H. O. Tando Muhammad Khan against the petitioner. The report reads as follows :- "it is submitted that the above-mentioned accused is residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
He is a notorious and habitual offender. He is habitual of quarrelling and deals with narcotics. The desperate persons of far-off places visit him. He harbours them and gets the crimes committed through them. The public is afraid of him and they are under great awe and terror.
He recovers the Goonda tax from the public after making Goonda party and no one could lodge any report against him due to fear.
Previously he was challaned in crime No. 27/76 under section 13-D Arms Act. Crime No. 27/75 43(3), Abkari Act under section 110/55, Cr. P. C. Under section 107/151, Cr. P. C. And Crime No. 17/77 under section 107/151, Cr. P. C. And on 8-6-1977 under section 107/151, P. P. C. And on 4-7-1977 respectively.
It is submitted that the above-mentioned accused is loafer, notorious and quarrelling one. The public is tired of him. His being at large is hazardous to the public. Therefore, a report under section 14/4 against the above-mentioned accused is being submitted before; this Hon'ble Court and pray for action."
2. On perusal of the aforesaid report the learned Tribunal took cognizance of the case, ordered issue of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner for there was apprehension that the commission of the offence complained against him cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest of the opponent/petitioner.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition contended that the report submitted by the S. H. O. Was inter alia wholly insufficient and inadequate for taking any proceeding against this petitioner under the said Act much less for an order of non---bailable warrant against the petitioner. The report, as it is obvious is vague and insufficient and wholly devoid of any particulars. This Court in several cases (1977 P Cr. L J 746 and PLD 1978 Kar. 368) has held that such vague allegations as in the present case and the omission to give the details of time and place of the acts complained of would vitiate the entire proceeding as it will amount to failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of section 6 of the said Act.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General relied on that part of the report in which are given the various cases in which the petitioner had been challaned which according to him furnish the requisite particulars. No doubts the report refers to as many as six cases in which the petitioner was challaned but it is remarkable that the report omits to mention whether these we pending or had been disposed of and if so with what result. It passes our comprehension as to how the Tribunal in the absence of requisite information regarding the said cases could have relied upon it and made it a ground for initiating proceedings against the petitioner under the said Act. As it turns out in the first two cases referred to in the report the petitioner w acquitted. In the third he was discharged while in the remaining three under section 107/151, Cr. P. C. The proceedings were pending. Even if we were to assume that the pending proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C could have been taken into account by the learned Tribunal it was necessary to ascertain the nexus between the proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C. And the acts enumerated in section 14 of the said Act which nexus was lacking in the absence of copies of complaint under section 107, Cr. P. C.
Before the learned Tribunal.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the aforesaid omissions are wholly irrelevant for purposes of initiating proceedings against the petitioner under the said Act inasmuch as under its election 4 the Tribunal can take cognizance when a person complained against resides or the act complained against is alleged to have been committed within its jurisdiction and a police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector makes a report in writing in this behalf. The argument was that the contents of the report submitted by the police officer was not relevant for the purposes of taking cognizance. The argument is purile for the said Act must as a whole and if its sections 4, 5 and 6 are read together it is clear that in the absence of compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 6 of the said Act, the Tribunal would not be justified in taking cognizance under section 4.
6. The result therefore, is that this petition is allowed with costs.