1. ' This application is directed against the order dated 21-3-1981 passed by the District Magistrate (South) and Tribunal, Karachi in a proceeding under section 14, Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 whereby he directed the applicant to furnish two sureties each in the sum of Rs, 10,000 with P. R.
2. Bond in the like amount for keeping good behaviour for a period of three years failing which he has to remain in Jail custody till he furnishes sureties.
3. ' The facts of the case are that on 15-5-1978, S. H.
0. Kalakot Police Station, Karachi filed report under section 14, Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 against the applicant in the Court of A. C. & S. D. M., Karachi. The Tribunal ordered the issue of summons against them. The proceedings started before, the District Magistrate South/Ttibunal who after recording evidence ordered the applicant to furnish sureties as mentioned above.
4. ' I have heard Mr. S. Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Agha Ghulam Ali for the State.
5. ' On behalf of applicant following contentions have been raised :-
(1) That there in contravention of the mandatory provisions of sections 4? 5, 6 and 8 of the Act,
(2) That cases mentioned in the report are pending or have compromised except one case which resulted in conviction.
(3) That period of Notice issued by Tribunal had already expired before final order is passed.
6. ' A perusal of the Report/Complaint, shows that the instances mentioned in the report are mostly pending cases and cases which ended in compromise except one single conviction in a case F. I. R.
7. 92/77 Kalakot Police Station under section 43(3), Abkari Act where petitioner was sentenced to 15 days' R. I. During the proceedings the most of the witnesses except Police Officials have deposed that their case ended in compromise. The one isolated case of conviction for petty offence and were giving the list of the case in which the petitioner was challaned cannot be substitute of statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 for taking cognizance on such report. On this point this High Court in cases reported in 1976 P Cr. L J 650, PLD 1980 Kar. 267 and 1982 P Cr. L J 1173, has held that cognizance under the Act cannot be sustained in the absence of compliance of requirement of its section 6.
8. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Yousuf v.
9. Muhammad "Islam Zia and 2 others (1) in which it was observed that "If on the basis of void order subsequent orders have been passed either by the same authoriy and by other authorities the whole series of such orders together within the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them must fall to the ground because such orders have a little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded".
10. ' Mr. Ghulam Ali Agha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State, at the outset conceded and stated that he does not support the impugned order of the Tribunal.
11. ' I have considered the evidence adduced on the basis of report and the case-law. In my view when initially cognizance of the report being wrong all the proceedings and orders passed therein are also null and void.
12. ' The proceedings under sections 4 and 14 of the Act and impugned orders are, therefore, hereby quashed. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled.
(1) PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104