1. This Constitutional petition seeks to challenger the proceedings undo: section 4/14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner who is stated to be a businessm an, social worker and local politician alleges that the proceedings which were initiated by the report of S.H.O., Jauharabad Police Station are male fide and as a result of grudge against him of the then ruling party for political reasons. S.H.O., Jauharabad Police Station made a report under section 14 of the Act against the petitioner stating that he is a desperate criminal and a bully.
2. Instances of pending cases were mentioned in the report which was filed on 20th May, 1975 and at the time the petitioner was detained under section 8 (3) (b) of the Act by the Tribunal. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same and therefore, the peti- -tioner filed Revision Application before the High Court which was numbered as Criminal Revision Application No. 115 of 1976 and on 14th September, 1976 the High Court suspended the operation of the detention order and he was ordered to be released on bail. It is the case of the petitioner that at the same time on 28th May, 1975 the history-sheet was opened against him at the same police station on the basis of all the 11 cases which had earlier been mentioned in the report under section 14 of the Act. However, order of pending history sheet was challenged before the High Court and a Divi--sion Bench set aside the order in Constitutional Petition No. 375 of 1977 vide judgment dated 5th March, 1979. The grounds raised in the petition are as under :--
(1) That the cognizance taken by respondent 1 on the report of the S.H.O. Baghdadi is without lawful authority and illegal as the report does not allege the contravention of any of the clauses of section 14 of the Act.
(2) That there has been contravention of the provisions of section 6 of the Act.
(3) That the instances mentioned in the report have no nexus with the allegations.
(4) That the offences under the Pakistan Penal Code which do not figure in the 35 clauses of section 14 are not covered by the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.
3. With regard to contention No. 1, the Act, as the preamble shows, was enacted to provide effective machinery of law to prevent the commis--sion and repetition of crimes. Section 14 of the Act contains 35 clauses which make it clear that cognizance is to be taken of a case in which the person complained against habitually commits the acts mentioned in the clauses of the section. It is very clear from a perusal of the clauses and the use of the word `frequently' in most of the clauses that there should be repetition of crimes under these clauses before action could be taken.
4. A perusal of the report/complaint of the S.H.O. Jauharabad Police Station would show that the general allegation is that the petitioner is desperate and a bully. The only clause under which the allegation could possibly fall is clause 34 which reads as under : "Is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community."
5. The details of cases in which 11 instances are cited do not show that the petitioner was convicted in any of the cases.
6. With regard to contention No. 2, although 11 cases have been listed the particulars given are only the number of First Information Report and the section of the Pakistan Penal Code which are shown in the First Information Report. Section 6 of the Act makes a mandatory provision that the acts with which the person complained against is charged should be mentioned giving the details of time and place of such acts. It is, therefore, apparent that there is a contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid section which has been considered as sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings.
7. With regard to the contention of offences under the Penal Code which do not figure in the clauses of section 14 of the Act, it may be observed that since the very prerequisite of requiring a person to furnish a bond for good behaviour is that the Tribunal should be satisfied that the person complained against had committed any of the acts mentioned in the 35 clauses of this section, it is only when any offences punishable under the A Pakistan Penal Code have been mentioned in the aforesaid clauses that the same become relevant for the purposes of the enquiry proceedings which could result in the order for furnishing a bond to be of good behaviour.
8. From a perusal of the report made by the S.H.O. Jauharabad Police Station it is apparent that the instances of acts complained against are of pending cases in which the petitioner has not been adjudged guilty, and the same have no nexus with the general allegation about his being a desperate and dangerous person. The petition is accordingly allowed and the order taking cognizance of the report against the petitioner by respon--dent No. 1, for the reasons given, is declared illegal and without lawful authority. The same is hereby set aside and the proceedings under section 14 of the Act are quashed. The petitioner is on bail and his bail bond stands cancelled.