By this petition, the petitioner challenges the cognizance taken by respondent No. 1 under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, on a complaint dated 24th November, 1980 (Annexure A/6) under section 14 against him, on the ground that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are contrary to the mandatory provisions of sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the said Act and as such the said proceedings are without lawful authority and, therefore, be quashed.
The main allegations against the petitioner as mentioned in Annexure A/6 are that he is a head of the gang of Bangalies, who imported women from Bangla Desh through unauthorised routes and sell them in Karachi and Sind etc., and further the petitioner harbours such persons, who indulged in such trade as well as those who enter Pakistan illegally. According to the Annexure A/6, the petitioner is alleged to be habitual offender and a desperate and a dangerous person, as to render his being at large hazardous to the community and in support of these allegations seven cases are cited in Annexure A/6, in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved.
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before me, that the allegations made in Annexure A/6 were wholly vague, lacking in particulars and did not disclose the details of times and places of the acts, with which the petitioner has been charged in the said report. In view of this the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted, that respondent No. 1 has wrongly taken the cognizance of the said report and directed issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner, without applying his own mind and as such mandatory provisions of sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 have been completely ignored and bypassed by the respondent No. 1. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in para. 8 of the above petition, the petitioner has denied the allegations made against him in Annexure A/6, as well as he has mentioned in the said para that he was never fined in respect of Case No. F. I. R. 89/1979 under section 324/34, P. P. C. And in respect of case under F. I. R. 17/ 1980 under section 11 of Zina Enforce-- ment Hudood Ordinance, 1979, the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner further in the said para. Has mentioned, that none of the seven cases cited in Annexure A/6 are pending against him. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted, that these averments made by the petitioner in para. 8 of the above petition have not been denied by respondent No. 2, inasmuch as no counter affidavit denying these allegations has been filed by respondent No. 2. In view of this it was urged on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, that the case of the petitioner does not fall under any provisions of section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. In support of these submissions the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon cases PLD 1980, Kar. 267, and 1976 P Cr. L J 650 and submitted that this is a fit case for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of Annexure A/6.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the respondents, at outset, conceded, that he does not support the proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A/6, as the said proceedings have been taken without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 8 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the authorities cited by him and have taken into consideration the statement of the learned Additional Advocate-General. In my opinion, Tribunal's failure to record substance of report or information laid by police, in his order directing issuance of warrants and merely mentioning existence of reasons to apprehend commission of act complained against the petitioner, without mentioning act or allegations on whose basis warrants was issued, such order cannot be considered to be in compliance with a provisions of sec--tion 5. This view of mine is fully supported by case reported in PLD 1977 Kar. 575 and I agree with the reasoning of the learned Judges given in their said judgment for arriving at said conclusion. It may further be noted, that the main allegations against the petitioner as mentioned in Annexure A/6 are regarding his alleged trading in import and sale of women but not a single case on this basis has been cited in the said report, having been initiated against the petitioner. Further mere giving of list of the cases in which the petitioner has been challaned, cannot be a substitute for statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 for taking cognizance on such report and as such cognizance taken on such basis, cannot be considered to be proper. In this view of mine, I am fully supported by D. B. Decision of this Court reported in PLD 1980 Kar. 267.
6. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the cognizance taken by respondent No. 1, on the basis of Annexure A/6, and initiating proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 against the peti--tioner on the said basis only, is in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 8 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 and as such I allow the above petition and quash the said proceeding initiated against the petitioner, on the basis of report dated 24th November, 1980 Annexure A/6, under the provisions of section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 by respondent No. I and discharge personal bond furnished by petitioner and direct that the surety amount of Rs.
10,000 deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him.