1. Since common points of law and fact are involved in both these petitions, therefore, I have decided to dispose of both of them by this order.
2. A report was submitted by the S. H .O. Mohbit Dero Jato Police Station against the petitioners q 25- 7-1983 to S.D.M. Naushero Feroz alleging that each of them was a dangerous person, well-known thief and used to commit theft and dispose of stolen property. Each of the petitioner was alleged to be receiving Bhung and that thieves of far-of places visit them. Besides list of cases was given in which each petitioner was challaned.
3. It may be pointed out that the above allegations are absolutely vague and of general nature. No specific instance is cited nor the name of any specific theft or victim is given. It is not alleged that in any one of the above cases the petitioners were even convicted.
4. A The learned S.D.M. On the basis of the above report passed an order calling upon them to show cause as to why each of the petitioners should not be ordered to execute bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 for keeping good behaviour for 3 years and to furnish 2 solvent sureties in the like amount.
5. The petitioners were already in custody and were remanded by the S.D.M. To custody without making any observation as to the fact whether their remand to custody was for preventing the repetition of the acts complained against them.
6. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh for each of the petitioners, who has pointed out that the mandatory provisions of sections 5 to 6 and 8 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 have not been complied with.
7. The allegations are absolutely general in nature. No specific instance whatsoever has been cited.
8. Neither of the 2 petitioners were ever convicted in any case. He also submitted that the proceedings against petitioners were mala fide.
9. I find myself in full agreement with the contention of Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh. In 1983 P Cr. L J 1271 Mr. B.G.N. Gazi, J. Held that issuance of order under section 5 and N.B.Ws. Of arrest were not in accordance with law as there was no specific mention of any apprehended act in the order as well as in the report general allegations were made. The S.D.M. Had not mentioned that the arrest of the accused was necessary for preventing the repetition of the acts complained against. In another ruling reported in 1980 P Cr. L J 872 a Division Bench comprising of Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and Mr. B.G.N. Qazi, JJ. Observed that mere list of cases in which the petitioner was challenged cannot be a substitute for a statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of the Act. In yet another ruling reported in 1979 P Cr. L J 303 a Division Bench comprising of Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and Mr. Ajmal Mian, JJ., held that though the petitioner was reported to be notorious and habitual offender involved in many criminal cases and challaned in 6 cases, yet the police omitted to mention the particulars as to time and place of acts complained and the final result of the cases. It was held that the Tribunal could not rely upon such report nor could it be made basis for initiating proceedings against petitioner nor could the S.D.M. Have issued N.B.Ws. Of his arrest. The proceedings were, therefore, quashed. Similar view was taken in a number of other cases which were recapitulated, in PLD 1985 Kar. 187 which is the latest ruling on this point, given by Mr. Tanzil- ur-Rehman's, J. Wherein it has been held in similar circumstances that the proceedings were illegal and the orders unsustainable in law, hence proceedings were quashed.