1. Applicant Ghafoor son of Rub Rakhio is being proceeded against under the Sind Crimes Control Act. 1975 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal, Naushahro Feroze, District Nawabsbah, on a report made against him by S.H.O. Padidan. On 31st July 1983, that he was a habitual thief, receiver and disposer of stolen property and he used to harbour thieves and commit offences and he was a nuisance to the public and his remaining at large without surety was hazardous to the general public peace and tranquillity etc. The learned Tribunal entertained the report and issued warrant for the production of the applicant from Sub-Jail, Naushahro Feroze where he was confined in another case. The applicant was produced before the Tribunal on 9th August 1983. A show-cause notice was read over and explained to him and evidence of SHO, Padidan (Agha Mir Alvi) was recorded. Thereafter an order under section 8 (3) (b) of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 was passed. The matter was put off to 15th August 1983. The applicant was remanded to custody.
2. No progress could be made on 15th August 1983 due to non-attendance of the witnesses and the applicant was remanded to custody. The proceedings against him and his detention in connection therewith have been called in question under this application under section 561-A, Cr. P.C.
3. The application was admitted on 3th October 1983. Notice of two applications under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. (M. A. No, 153 of 1983 and 154 of 1983), for his release on bail and stay of proceedings, was issued to the State Counsel for 5th October 1983. When the matter came up for hearing on 5th October 1983, Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.G. Appeared for the State. He and learned counsel for the applicant stated that both the applications and the main application may be heard simultaneously. They have been heard today.
4. Mr. Madad Ally Shah Syed, Advocate, representing the applicant, has urged that it is a case of victimization and that the proceedings have not been taken against the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 He has made pointed reference to the provisions of section 6 of the said Act and placed reliance on PLD 1980 Kar. 207 ; PLD 1981 Kar. 136; 1976 P Cr. L J 682 and 1982 P Cr. L J 750. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has conceded that the proceedings have not been conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 and they are liable to be quashed.
5. It is provided under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, that a Tribunal constituted under .Section 3 thereof may require a person involved in anti-social of disorderly activities enumerated in it, in the province, to furnish a bond with one or more sureties for a period not exceeding three years and for such amount as may be specified, to be of good behaviour. The procedure for taking such proceedings is contained in sections 4 to 11 and 13 of the Act. The provisions for the consideration of this application are contained in sections 4, 5, 6 and 8. Section 4 relates to the taking of cognizance by the Tribunal. Section 5 provides for the summoning of the person complained against. It lays down that on receipt of the report, the Tribunal shall issue a summons requiring the person complained against to appear, or when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is, to produce him before it. Section 6 enjoins That every summons or warrant issued under section 5 shall be accompanied by a copy of the report and such copy shall be delivered by the Officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under the same, and the report shall briefly state that acts with which the person complained against is charged, the details of time and place of such acts, and general repute of the person complained against or such other allegations made against him.
6. Section 8 relates to the proceedings required to be taken on the person complained against appearing before the Tribunal. It has been contended in this case that compliance of section 6 of the said Act requiring supply of a copy of the report to the person complained against at the time the summons or the warrant is served upon him, has not been made. Reliance has been placed on the diary of the proceedings, a certified copy whereof has been filed. It appears from the extracts of the diary of the proceedings that the report under section 14 of the said Act was presented before the Tribunal on 31st July 1983, and warrant for production of the applicant was ordered on the same day. The applicant was produced before the Tribunal from Sub-Jail, Naushahro Feroze, where he was confined in connection with an other matter on 19th August 1983. There is no mention that a copy of the report was forwarded to him. The learned Tribunal proceeded with the matter on the very day and recorded statement of the reporting SHO and passed an order under section 8
(3) (b) of the Act for the detention of the applicant. Obviously, the applicant was not afforded an opportunity of putting up his defence. Non-compliance of the provision of section 6 of the Act was considered in number of cases and it was held that non-compliance of those provisions vitiated the proceedings and the proceedings were quashed. Reference may be made to a case Muhammad Sadiq v. S. D. M., Malir and Tribunal City Court, Karachi , whereunder the proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act were held to be without lawful authority on the grounds that a copy of report was not supplied to the person complained against and also details of the acts attributed to him were not disclosed. It has also been contended that the report against the applicant contains vague allegations and no particulars of the acts imputed to him have been given as required under section 6 of the Said Act The report made against the applicant makes mention of few cases the applicant was involved in but it does not specify other allegations made against him. Such sweeping allegations were not accepted in the case, Jan Muhammad v. The State and Muhammad Siddik v. S. D. M. & Tribunal , wherein case-law on the point was thoroughly examined and referred to.1 2 3 As discussed above, the mandatory provisions of section 6 of the said Act have not been complied with in taking the proceedings under B section 14 of the Act against the applicant, the proceedings are liable to be quashed, and are hereby quashed. The applicant shall be released forthwith unless required to be detained in any other matter. PLD 1981 Kar. 136 PLD 1981 Kar. 682 PLD 1981 Kar. 685