1. ' This petition challenges the cognizance taken by Assistant Commissioner and S. D. M. Central, Karachi as Tribunal under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 on a complaint made under section 14 of the Act by Choudhery Riyasat Ali, Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi on 27th September, 1981.
2. ' Allegation against the petitioner. Izzat Khan is that be is running an Agency illegally in the name of Mobina Town since 1966 and disposing off the land illegally to persons showing himself to be the owner. He is further alleged to have sold Government land to some persons for which case under section 447, P. P. C. Was registered.
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that allegation against the petitioner is vague and particulars about the time and places of the acts are not mentioned in the complaint and that accusation made do not come under the purview of section 14 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. He has further submitted that Tribunal has wrongly taken cognizance of the said report and issued non-bailable warrants without applying his mind and mandatory provisions of sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 have completely been ignored.
3. ' In support of the above submission the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon PLD 1977 Kar. 575, PLD 1977 Kar. 305 and 1977 P Cr. L J Kar. 746 and submitted that proceeding be quashed.
4. ' Mr. Imam Bux Shaikh. Advocate appearing on behalf of State at the outset frankly conceded and has not supported the Revision petition. He has stated that Tribunal has wrongly taken cognizance against the petitioner.
5. I have carefully considered the factual and legal points. I am of the opinion that report submitted by Police is vague, lacking in particulars and did not mention the time and place of act with which the petitioner was charged. Moreover, there is no allegation that petitioner is habitual offender or dangerous person. The provision under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 are not of punitive nature but of preventive nature. In the present case compliance of mandatory provision of sections 5, 6 and 8 have not been made.
6. ' In numerous cases this Court has held that cognizance under this Act cannot be sustained without compliance of requirements of section 6.
7. ' In view of the above facts, I allow the above petition and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner before Assistant Commissioner/s. D. M., Central, Karachi.