This Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution calls in question the order dated 8- 10-1978 passed by the S. D. M./Tribunal, Khairpur on a report under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 (herein--after called the Act) submitted by the A. S. I. Muhammad Ramzan of Sobho Dero Police Station, District Khairpur. It is alleged therein that the petitioner is a `badmash', habitual thief of cattle and other property and returns the same for `bhung' and habitually creates harassm ent in public duly armed with deadly weapons.
Is support of these allegations 7 cases have been cited in the report, which are all stated to be pending. On this report the S. D. M./Tribunal passed the following orders :- "From the Police report it appears that the acts complained against cannot be prevented otherwise than by the arrest of the accused. Issue non-bailable warrants against. Him."
2. It is contended by Mr. Yousuf Ahmad Jafry, Advocate that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is without jurisdiction on the following grounds: "The report was lodged by a Police Officer below the rank of Sub--Inspector.
(2) No reasons are given for issuance of non-bailable warrant nor was any case made out in the report for issuance of non-bailable warrant.
(3) The provisions of section 6 of the Act were not complied with for the report does not, give any particulars whatsoever, of the acts allegedly committed by the petitioner. The report also does not give the date and place of the alleged acts. Nor any copies of the reports yr complaints have been filed."
3. Taking up the first point, a perusal of the report shows that it was lodged by A. S. 1. Muhammad Ramzan of Sobho Dero Police Station. It is, A therefore, clear that the report was lodged by a police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector. Under section 4 of the Act a Tribunal can take cognizance of a case under the Act when 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 Sub-Inspector makes report in writing in that behalf. Therefore, the conditions mentioned in clause
(b) of section 4 of the Act has not been complied with. Accordingly, the Tribunal could not have taken cognizance on such a report.
4. As regards the second ground, neither the order quoted above nor does the Police report give any reason for issuance of non-bailable warrant in the first instance. In view of the proviso to section 5 of the Act, a' Tribunal could issue warrant only when it apprehends that the commission of the act complained against cannot be prevented otherwise than by the arrest of the accused.
Since no reasons are stated for adopting such a course,therefore, issuance of non-bailable warrants was also in complete disregard of the provisions of section 5. Such an order has been consistently held by this Court to be without lawful authority. If any authority is needed reference may be made to Abdul Hamid v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Tribunal, Hyderabad and another (1), Wahid Bux v. The State (2) and Aftab Alan; alias Matoo v. Tribunal and A. C. & S. D.,M. (Central), Karachi and another (3).
5. As regards the third ground, it has been consistently held that essential requirements of the Act are that the report should briefly state-
(i) the acts with which the person complained against is charged ; (ii) the'details of time and place of such acts ; and
(iii) general repute of person complained of or such other allegation made against him.
It is, conceded by Mr. Agha Saifuddin that this ground has substance in view of the decisions of this Court in Uris v. Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotri and 2 others (4), Arsalla Khan v.
District Magistrate (South) & Tribunal (5)' Shero alias Sher Muhammad v. The State (6), Aftab Alam alias Matoo v. Tribunal A. C. & S. D. M. (Central), Karachi (7), Haji A.I Muhammad Solangi v. Tribunal S. D. M. Nazimabad and another (8), Shah Nazar Khan v. Assistant Commissioner and S. D. M. Malir Karachi and 2 others (9( ; Muhammad Siddique v. The State (10) and Syed Abbas Al! Shah v. Sub-- Divisional Magistrate & Tribunal, Tando Muhammad Khan and another (11 ).
We may however, here refer to the observation made in the cases of Muhammad Siddique and Haji All Muhammad Solangi. In Muhammad Siddique it was observed by Z. A. Channa, J. As follows :- "The mere fact that a person is suspected in some offence or offences or even that he was challaned in respect of certain offences would not be sufficient to bring his case within the purview of section 14 of the Act which in my humble view appears to envisage such more tangible proof in support of the unsocial activities alleged against such person."
(1) PLD 1977 Kar. 575(2) 1977 P Cr. L J 257
(3) PLD 1978 Kar. 305(4) PLD 1977 Kar. 506
(5) 1977 P Cr. L J 746(6) PLD 1978 Kar. 305 l7) PLD 1978 Kar. 368(8) PLD 1980 Kar. 267
(9) PLD 1977 Kar: 582(10) PLD 1979 Kar. 229
(11) 1979 P Cr. L J 303 The learned Judge after referring to Noor Muhammad v. The State (1975 P Cr. L J 1025) wherein it was held that a mere statement made by the S. H. O., in his report that the petitioner had a reputation of notorious and hazadous criminal without specifying instances of his being involved in any incident or breach of peace or acting in a desperate and dangerous manner mantioned in the report, and the mere citation in the report of five cases in which the petitioners was involved without indicating their result or stage, was not sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner under section 110, Cr. P. C. He further observed that: "In my humble view these observations apply with equal force to reports under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 because such reports are required to contain particulars of the acts cnmplained against the person concerned as also the details of the time and place, of such acts. The mere mention in the police report of the cases in which a person is involved has likewise not been considered to be a require--ment of the law for the purposes of action under the West Pakistan Control of Goonds Ordinance, 1956. (See Nizamuddin v. The State 1976 P Cr. L J 650)."
Haji A.I Muhammad Solangi which is a Division Bench case, Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J. Relied on a decision given by Tufail A.I A. Rehman, C. J. In Nizamuddin v. The State (1976 PCrLJ 650) wherein in relation to parallel section 5 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 it was held that "a mere list of cases in which the petitioner was challaned cannot be a substitute of statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of the said Ordinance. Section 6 of the Act like section 5 of the said Ordinance also provides for the same particulars". It may be recalled that in this case a list of 7 cases was relied upon in the report by the police under section 14 of the Act.
We may also refer to Aftab Alan alias Matoo .v. Province of Sind (PLD 1979 Kar 645) wherein Ajmal Mian, J. After reviewing a large number of reported cases deduced therefrom amongst others the following principle:- "The mere pendency of cases for the various criminal offences against a person will not make him a person reasonably believed to be a habitual offender or habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abetter of such crime."
We, therefore, allow this petition and declare the order impugned in this petition to have been passed without lawful authority, and is, therefore, of no legal effect. However, in the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs.