By this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the proceedings pending against him in the Court of A.C. And S.D.M. Liaquatabad, Karachi initiated on a complaint made under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 by the S.H.O. New Karachi Police Station, Karachi.
2. In support of the above petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the report submitted by the S.H.O. New Karachi Police Station contains bald and vague allegations without particulars. Against the petitioner allegations have been made that he behaves riotously in public, that he is a criminal and supporter of criminals, runs the business of narcotic, is in the habit of adulteration in food-stuff, cheater and earns money by cheating and has misappropriated rupees two and half Lacs being a member of Anjuman Atadul Qureshi, New Karachi and that he is a Goonda type of person and is dangerous for the general public and that his being at large without surety would be hazardous to the community in general. Against him have been cited 7 cases (period 1972 to 1978). The Tribunal by order passed on 26-12-1985 issued non-bailable warrants, pursuant to which he was arrested and by subsequent order passed on 29-12-1985 he was ordered to be confined in jail for a period of two months under section 8(3)(b) of Sind Crimes Control Act.
1975. An appeal against the order thus passed was preferred before the Commissioner, Karachi Division, who on 18-1-1986, admitted him to bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.10,000. The proceedings pending before the Tribunal, however, were not quashed or interfered with.
3. In the circumstances, this petition has been filed invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. After going through the record, I find that out of the seven cases cited against the petitioner by the S.H.O. In his report, in three cases the petitioner was either discharged, acquitted or the case itself stood disposed of as compromised. In the other four cases according to the petitioner has never prosecuted though the same relate to the years 1976 and 1977. I also find that the allegations made against the petitioner in the report submitted by the S.H.O. Before the Tribunal on which the proceeding was initiated did not conform to and was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.
5. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, learned Additional Advocate-- General in view of the principle consistently laid down by the superior Courts of the country stated that he does not support the proceedings initiated and the orders passed against the petitioner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional A.-G. I find that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the settled law which has been reiterated in the case of Jan Muhammad v. The State PLD 1981 Kar. 682 wherein the Honourable Mr. Justice Naimuddin (now the Chief Justice of this Court) B quashed the proceedings taken under section 14 of the above Act, 1975 .On the principle which the learned Judge laid down as follows:- "..Neither the order quoted above nor does the police report give any reason for issuance of non- bailable warrant in the first instance. In view of the proviso to section 5 of the Act, a Tribunal could issue warrant only when it apprehends that the commission of the act complainant against cannot be prevented otherwise than by the arrest of the accused. Since no reasons are stated for adopting such a course, therefore, issuance of non-bailable warrants was also in complete disregard of the provisions of section 5. Such an order has been consistently held by this Court to be without lawful authority."
7. Being satisfied that the rule laid down as above fully applies to the facts of the present case, I declare that the cognizance taken by the Tribunal on the report submitted against the petitioner and the orders passed against the petitioner are illegal, void and not warranted by law. The said proceedings including the impugned order passed therein being without lawful authority and of no legal effect are hereby quashed.
8. The petition, therefore, succeeds but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.