' FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-This Petition challenges the cognizance taken by a Tribunal, constituted under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, on a complaint made under its section 14 on the ground that it was in disregard of the mandatory requirement of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act. More particularly it was argued that the report submitted by the police was wholly vague, lacking in particulars and did not detail the time and place of the acts with which the petitioner was charged. We have seen the report and find that it contains vague allegation such as that the petitioner is a bully and a disorderly desperate person who had committed criminal offences. By way of particulars was given list of cases as follows :-
(1) Case F. I. R. No, 99/78 under section 488, P. P. C. Of Gulberg Police, Station, Karachi. This case is pending trial in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate.
(2) Complaint under section 107/117, Cr. P. C. Dated 18-1-1977 pending in the Court of S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi.
(3) Complaint under section 197/117, Cr. P. C. Dated 5-3-1977 pending in the Court of S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi.
(4) Complaint under section 137/117, Cr. P. C. Dated 3-10-1977 pending in the Court of S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi.
(5) Report under section 323/504, P. P. C. Vide Station Diary entry No, 34 dated 6-2-1978 of Gulberg Police Station, Karachi.
(6) Complaint under section 107/17, Cr. P. C. Dated 12-2-1976 ended in compromise.
(7) Report under section 323/504, P. P. C. Vide Station Diary No, 75, dated 15-10-1978 of Gulberg Police Station, Karachi.
2. Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to a decision by Mr. Justice Tufail Ali A. Rehman, C. J., (as he then was) reported in 1976 P Cr. L J 650 in which in relation to parallel section 5 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance it was held at a mere list of cases in which the petitioner was challaned cannot be a substitute for statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of the Ordinance, Section 6 of the Act like section 5 of the said Ordinance also provides for the same particulars. In numerous cases this Court has held that cognizance under the Act cannot be sustained in the absence of compliance of requirement of its section 6.
' We, therefore, allow this petition with costs.