1. ' By this application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Order dated 1-2-1986 passed by S. D. M. Shikarpur has been called in question.
2. ' A report was submitted by the S. H.
3. 0., Police Station Stuart Ganj, Shikarpur against the petitioner order on 1-2-1986 to S. D. M. Shikarpur alleging that he is a Badmash, a criminal and has no ostensible means of livelihood, habitually deals in narcotics and comes into encounter with police and is a nuisance to the passengers.
4. Besides this a list of seven cases was given in which the petitioner was challaned. Three police officials were cited as witnesses against him.
5. ' It may be pointed out that the above allegations are absolutely vague and of general nature. No specific instance is cited nor the name or details of any specific crime is given. It is not alleged that any one of these cases in which the petitioner is said to have been challaned has ended in conviction.
6. ' The learned S. D. M. On the basis of the above report issued bailable warrant in the sum of Rs, 10,000 and passed the impugned order referred to above. On the basis of that bailable warrant the petitioner was arrested on the same day and produced in custody before the S. D. M. Who claiming that he was unable to furnish surety. Remanded the accused to custody. The order under sections 6 and 14 was passed by the S. D. M. On the same day repeating all the allegations made in the police report verbatim and calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be ordered to execute bond in the sum of Rs, 25,000 "to piece for a period of 12 months" within the local limits of that Court.
7. It may be pointed out that section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act as well as section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act are designed t provide machinery of law to prevent the Commission and repetition of crime and to consolidate the law relating to anti-social and disorderly persons. It does not take into consideration the cases where there is apprehension of breach of peace. Such cases can be properly dealt with under section 107 of Cr. P. C. Hence the order of S. D. M. Calling upon the petitioner to execute bond for keeping peace under the Sind Crimes Control Act appears to be without jurisdiction.
8. ' It has been pointed out by Mr. Sharafuddin Ada counsel for State that perhaps there is a clerical mistake in the true copy of the order supplied to the petitioner or may be even in the original order.
9. Even if it is assumed that there is a clerical mistake and actually the petitioner was called upon to execute bond for keeping good behaviour then also, it may be pointed out that the learned S. D. M.
10. Has acted in an illegal manner by remanding the petitioner to custody on 1-2-1986 without mentioning that such an action was necessary for the prevention of commission of the acts complained against the petitioner then alone he could direct his detention in custody as required by clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of section 8 of the Sind Crimes Control Act.
11. ' The mandatory provisions of sections 5 and 6 of Crimes Control Act have also not been complied and inasmuch as the allegations are absolutely of general nature. No specific instance whatsoever of any crime has been cited nor is it shown that any one of the above cases has ended into conviction as already pointed out by me above.
12. ' There is a line of ruling condemning such irregular and laconic proceedings which have been given by this Court from time to time. In 1980 P Cr. L J 872 Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and. Mr. B. G. N.
13. Kazi, IL have held 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.
14. ' In the case of Syed Abbas Ali Shah v. S. D. M. And Tribunal, Tando Muhammad Khan and another
(1) Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and Mr. Ajmal Mian, IL have held that though the petitioner was reported to be notorious and habitual offender involved in many criminal cases and shown to have been challenged in six 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 the petitioner nor could the S. D. M. Have issued N. B. Ws. Of his arrest. The proceedings were, therefore, quashed.
15. ' In the case of Muhammad Ashraf alias Taoo v. The State and another (2) Mr. B. G. N. Kazi, J. Held that issuance of order under section 5 and the issuance of N. B. Ws. Of arrest were not in accordance with law as there
(1) 1979 P Cr. L J 303 (2) 1983 P Cr. L J 1271 was no specific mention of any apprehended act in the order as well as in the report only general allegations were made. In another case Mahmood Ahmed (Muhammad Ahmed) v. Tribunal' S. D. M.
16. City, Hyderabad (1), l'anzilur Rehman, J. Held in similar circumstances that the proceedings were illegal and the orders unsustainable in law, hence he quashed the proceedings.
17. ' In the case of Amir Ali and 22 others v. State (2), Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J. Has condemned the practice of making allegations of general and vague nature without mentioning details of acts and time and place of occurrence in the report and evidence produced before the Tribunal not proceedings beyond repeating facts mentioned in the report and the order required to be made lacking in material particulars as required under section 6 of the Act. The Honourable Judge went on to mention that vague allegations, such as, a person is a 'bully', a bad character or a thief or a scoundrel or a Badmash, would not be sufficient to initiate proceedings against him. Mere pendency of one or more criminal cases against a person or his conviction in one or two cases would not be sufficient ground to sustain proceedings under section 14. Similar ruling has been given by my brother Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J. In the same year in Miyoon and others v. Sub- Divisional Magistrate (3).
18. The latest ruling on this point has been given by me in Hasa and another v. The State (4) where I have held that when the allegations against accused absolutely vague and of general nature, neither specific instance cited nor name of any specific theft or victim given, nor accused shown to have been convicted in any case, accused who were already in custody remanded by S. D. M.
19. Without making any observation as to the fact whether their remand to custody was for preventing repetition of acts complained against them, mandatory provisions of sections 5, 6 and 8 of Act not complied with. Proceedings against accused, held, were mala fide. c Police as well as S. D. M. Acted in a manner contrary to law and no sufficient material existing to proceed against accused- in circumstances.
20. ' For these reasons, I accept the application and quash the proceedings.
(1) PLD 1985 Kar. 187 (2) 1986 P Cr. L J 30
(3) 1986 P Cr. L J 277 (4) 1986 P Cr. L J 430 THE END ALL PAKISTAN LEGAL DECISIONS HIGH COURT OF BALUCHISTAN