This Petition challenges the cognizance taken by the tribunal cons--tituted under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a complaint made undersection 14 on the ground that it was in complete disregard of the mandatory requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the Act. It was mainly 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 detenu was charged, and that the learned tribunal instead of issuing summons in the first instance against the detenu issued non-bailable warrants for his appear--ance without recording substance of report or information laid by police in his order directing issuance of warrant. I have gone through the report and find that it contains vague allegations such as the detenu indulges in charas and .Is a notorious charas seller and is a desperate person who generally assaults the public. The record also shows that the learned tribunal instead of issuing summons in the first instance issued non- bailable warrants against the detenu without recording substance of report or information laid by police in his order directing issuance of warrant. By way of particulars a list .Of cases was given which reads as follows :- Serial No.Case of Section Court Summary Order
(1) 268/1971 under section 147/148 A. C. M. No. 26Compromised on 5thFebruary, 1972.
(2) 301/1971 under section 324/34 -do- -do- (3)190/1974 under section 379,T. P. X. Police Station.S. D. M.
Harbour.10 February, 1972.
(4) 146/1975 under section 43 (3)Sessions CourtP. Court.
(5) 211/1976 under section 307/34 A. C. M. 13(5)P. Court
2. I have heard Mr. S. Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. I. Memon the learned Additional Advocate-General for the respondent. Mr. S. Nasiruddin has invited my attention to the case of Ali Muhammad Solangi v. Tribunal/S. D. M. Nazimabad, Karachi (PLD 1980 Kar. 67), wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that a mere list of cases in which the detenu was challaned cannot be a substitute for statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of the Act, section 6 of the Act like section 5 of the said Act also provides for the same particulars. What I find that even the list of the cases shows that two of such cases were compromised long back and three others were pending as long back as in the years 1974, 1975 and 1976 and the learned Additional Advocate-General is doubtful as to whether they may be still pending in the Courts. In numerous cases this Court has held that cognizance under the Act cannot be sustained in the absence of compliance of the requirement of its section 6, and warrants cannot be issued against the detenu in absence of compliance of the requirements of its section 5. Mr. M. I. Memon, the learned Additional Advocate-General has very frankly conceded that there is no compliance of the requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the Act in the instant case.
3. The petition is, therefore, allowed with costs.