1. ' The facts of the case briefly stated are that against the petitioner abovenamed reprot/complaint No,6 of 1985 was submitted before the A .C. And S.D.M., Liaquatabad, Karachi. The Tribunal on 26-12- 1985 alleging therein that the petitioner is active criminal Goonda type man that he is hazardous, bully and indulging in illegal trade of NARCOTIC due to which the general reputation of the area people is being effected badly. Against the petitioner in the said complaint the following two cases wre cited:- "(i) F.I.R. No,87 of 1985 under section 34 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979.
(ii) F.I.R. No,411 of 1985 under section 34 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979."
2. ' In the report A.S-I. Muhammad Ramzan and S-I. Raja Abdul Rasheed were cited as the witnesses.
3. The respondent No,1 Tribunal by order passed on 26-12-198 issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and by another orde passed on 28-12-1985 held that it was a fit case to allow one surety I the sum of Rs,35,000 and P.R in the like amount to maintain good behaviour by the respondent pending enquiry against him. The cas was then adjourned to 7th January, 1986 for hearing.
4. ' By this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the petitioner has prayed for granting of declaration that his arrest/prosecution under section 19 of the Sind Crimes Control Act of 1975 is ab initio void, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently the proceedings in Criminal Case No,709 of 1985 pending against him Under section 14 of the abovementioned Act before the respondent No,1./Tribunal, be quashed.
5. ' To the grant of the relief abovementioned Mr. M.I. Memon, Additional A.-G. States that he has no objection.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the record I find that allegations made against the B petitioner are vague, no particulars of alleged incidents have been given. The essential requirements of the law have also not been given, which are:-
(i) the acts with which the person complained against is charged;
(ii) the details of time and place of such acts; and
(iii) general repute of person complained of or such ,other allegation made against him.
7. ' In the case of Muhammad Siddique v. The State PLD 1979 Kar. 229 principle was laid down as follows: "The mere fact that a person is suspected in some offence or offences or even that he was challaned in respect of certain offences would not be sufficient to bring his case within the purview of section 14 of the Act which in my humble view appears to envisage much. More tangible proof in support of the unsocial activities alleged against such person."
8. ' Reference may also be made here to the case of Aftab Alam alias Matoo v. The Province of Sind PLD 1979 Kar. 645 wherein the following principle was laid down:- "The mere pendency of cases for the various criminal offences against a person will not make him a person reasonably believed to be a habitual offender or habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abetter of such crime."
9. ' I am in respectful agreement with the above observations which have been cited with approval in the case of Jan Muhammad v. The State PLD 1981 Kai% 682.
10. For the abovementioned reasons this petition succeeds., Consequently, the impugned proceedings and order pas.Ed therein be the respondent No,1 are declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The same, therefore, are hereby quashed.
11. ' The parties are left to bear their own costs.