1. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--This judgment will dispose of Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1048 and 2092 of 1979 as both these petitions arise out of the same report and identical questions of law are involved in their disposal.
2. A report was submitted by the S. H.,O. Malir Extension Karachi against the petitioners in these two petitions and one other person under section 14 clause (xxxii) of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, before the S. D. M., Malir Karachi East on 30-6-1977.
3. The substance of the allegations contained in the report was that the petitioners had illegally occupied the land of the K. D. A. For the last 7/8 months and established a Colony under the name and style of Awan Colony. It was further alleged that by misrepresentation of facts the petitioners claiming as owners of the land were disposing of plots from the said land to various individuals for setting up hutments. It was also alleged that the petitioners were harassing the people through rowdyism and after the illegal occupation was removed through police force the original occupants re-occupied the land. Finally it was alleged that the petitioners were coercing the occupants to knock out money from them in connection with which four cases were pending against them.
4. On receipt of the above report the learned Tribunal on the same day ordered issuance of non- bailable warrants against the petitioner and also passed order under section 8(3xb) of the Sind Crimes Control Act on 17-1-1979 directing the detention of the petitioner in Constitutional Petition No. 1048 of 1979.
5. On behalf of the petitioners Mr. S. Ansar Hussain contends that the very assumption of cognizance of the aforesaid report and the subsequent proceedings are illegal being in violation of the mandatory requirements of sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Sind Crimes Control Act. It has been pointed out that there are four instances of cases pending against the petitioners out of which the first one under section 325/34, P. P. C. Is still under Police investigation and the remaining three are pending trial before the competent Courts of law. Out of the said three cases one is under section 107/117, Cr.
6. P. C. And two others are under sections 323, 426 and 504, P. P. C. All these cases are of the year 1979 and the petitioners have not been found guilty of the charges levelled against them. It is further urged that the petitioners alongwith others have a bona fide dispute over the title of the land mentioned in the report in connection with which a civil suit was pending before the competent civil Court and consequently, the petitioners dispute the fact that the land in question belongs to the K. D. A.
7. It may at once be stated that the order of the Tribunal issuing non--bailable warrants immediately on receipt of the report without any reasons and without applying mind to the material placed before it is palpably in disregard of mandatory provisions of section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act. Further, it appears to us that the gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners was the illegal occupation of the land belonging to the K. D. A. And the prosecution therefor invoked clause (xxxii) of section 14 which authorises the Tribunal to pass orders under the Sind Crones Control Act if the person proceeded against is "in the habit of unauthorisedly occupying" inter alia, the land belonging to Government or any Local Council, Autono--mous body etc. The contention that has impressed' us is that an isolated instance of occupation by the petitioners of a piece of land even if without justification will not furnish ground for proceeding against them, for the word `habit' imports repetition of similar acts over a period of time. Additionally, the instances cited besides lacking details as to time and place have also no nexus with the main allegation falling under clause (xxxii) of section 14. In Abdul Hamid v. S. D. M. City & Tribunal (1) a D. B. Of this Court struck down the assumption of jurisdiction on a complaint in which the instances cited had no nexus with the clause under which the main allegations were made. We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the report submitted before the Tribunal did not comply with the mandatory requirements of section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act. It also appears that as required by section 6 the copy of the report and the details of the acts complained against was not supplied to the petitioners.
8. The learned Additional Advocate-General was also not able to support the impugned proceedings on account of glaring illegalities pointed out by the A petitioners' counsel. of no legal effect. We leave the parties, however, to bear their own costs.