' Since the above applications involved question of law and I intend to dispose of the same by this common judgment.
2. The applicants have filed these petitions for quashment of orders dated 9th April, 1981 and 12th May, 1981 under section 5 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.
Criminal Miscellaneous 451I1981.-(i) The brief facts of this case are that on 7th April, 1981 a report was submitted in the Court of S. D. M., Thatta against the applicant levelled various allegations against the applicant that he is a thief and receives stolen property and disposes off the same after receiving bhung and past record of the applicant has also been shown.
' The learned S. D. M. On receipt of the report has ordered that bailable warrants be issued against the applicant and accordingly the applicant was arrested and produced before the S. D. M.
' Criminal Miscellaneous 69181. (i)-The brief facts of the case are that Inspector Ghulam Muhammad of P. S. Market. Hyderabad, has filed a report against the applicant in which general allegations have been levelled viz., is gunda and badmash and deals in charas upon receipt of report to the S. H.
0. And after recording his statement the learned S. D. M., Hyderabad, passed the following order on 12th May, 1981 :- "Report of the S. H.
0. Coupled with the statement recorded shows that the respondent have been repeating the crimes, offences complained against him. I, therefore, order to issue N.B.W. Against the respondent because this is only mean by which he can be prevented from the commission of offences reported against him."
3. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the reports filed against the applicant being not in accordance with proviso to section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The learned S. D. M. Hyderabad, has not given sufficient reasons for issuing non-bailable warrants.
4. In support of these contentions the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon 1977 Pak. Cr. L 1 257, 724, 662, 368, PLD 1978 Kar. 305 and PLD 1977 Kar.
575.
5. The learned counsel for the State at the outset submitted that he is supporting the quashment applications on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the applicants and in view of the law laid down by cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicants.
6. I have perused the F. I. R. Filed against the applicant, neither details of acts nor the time and place of such acts with which the applicants are charged are given in them. All that the report states is that the applicant is gunda and badmas and deals in charas in one case and in the other that he is a thief. In absence of any details as to the nature, time and place of the acts alleged against the applicants. In addition of this non-bailable warrants were issued in the first instances without holding any inquiry.
7. There appears to me to be a clear violation of sections 5 and 6 of the said Act. Section 5 requires that before issuing a warrant against at person reported, the Tribunal shall record the substance of the report or information upon which the warrant is being issued. Such substance must relate to the offence or act which is proposed to prevent through the issuance of warrant. In the instant cases, the learned Tribunal has failed to record the substance of the report of information by the Police in their orders directing the issuance of the warrants and have merely stated therein that there was reason to apprehend commission of the act complained C against, without mentioning that act or the allegations on the basis o which the warrants were being issued. The orders thus cannot be considered to be in compliance with the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the said Ordinance.
8. The language used in sections 5 and 6 of the Ordinance was prohibitory in nature and created a restriction on the powers of the Tribunal to take cognizance of a case. It made it compulsory for the Police Officer to sign the report and also to set out briefly all the particulars named in clause (2) of section 5, and unless the report gave these particulars, the Tribunal cannot take cognizance of the case. The language of this section was considered by several Division Benches of this Court and it had consistently been held that non-compliance of clause (2) by not supplying particulars and instances in the report, vitiated the very cognizances taken by the Tribunals, of a case under the Ordinance.
9. I have carefully considered the cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicants. The cases cited by the applicants are fully applicable to the facts of this case as I am in agreement with the views of their Lordships in these cases for the reasons given therein.
10. In this case, however, I find that the S. D. M. Tribunals did not apply their mind to the facts of the cases of the applicants. No reasons whatsoever were assigned for issuing warrants against them.
In view of the foregoing reasons the result is that these applications Nos. 451 and 569 succeed and the proceedings pending against the applicants are quashed.