1. ' Mr. K.B. Bhutto appearing for the applicant in support of the present application which is made by applicant Jamal son of Juma Khan for abashment of proceedings pending in the Court of S.D.M./Tribunal, Thatta, has contended that the applicant was sent up for trial under section 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by S.H.O. Aslam Khan of P.S. Thatta and he was released on bail in that case by the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M. Thatta on 299-1988. After he was released on bail from the jail, Thatta Police arrested him and confined him in the judicial lock- up without toe orders of any Court and on 29-9-1988 while he was already in jail, a report was made against him under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. On receipt of report wherein the case in which applicant was released on bail was cited as instance, impugned order was passed. In the list of witnesses Police Officers and one Excise Inspector have been cited as witnesses. The perusal of the report made under section 14 of the Act shows that the applicant was a habitual dealer of contraband Charas, habitual thief and that he kept dangerous weapons while committing offences, harboured thieves who visited him from remote places and extended assistance to him.
2. The perusal of the report shows that there is no instance, time or place mentioned in the report.
3. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations against the applicant are vague and general in nature. It is contended by him that according to the provisions of the section 6 of the Act details and time of specific actions alleged against the applicant are mandatory to be mentioned in the report submitted to the Tribunal/S.D.M. And unless there is compliance of these provisions, the cognizance could not be taken by the Tribunal and according to the learned counsel in this case these provisions have not been complied with. He has referred to score of reported decisions of this Court particularly reference is made to 1988 P Cr. L J 619, PLD 1986 Kar. 548, 1986 P Cr. L J 30, 1984 P Cr. L J 353 and 1984 P Cr. L J 647.
4. ' Mr. Shaik Azizur Rehman appearing for the State after consulting the papers has frankly conceded that in the report there is only case mentioned which is pending in the Court and from the order it appears that the orders passed by the Tribunal are mechanical and the Tribunal does not seem to have applied his mind to the facts of the case. The learned counsel did not support the continuation of the proceedings.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and gone through the record carefully. The applicant was released on bail only seven days before he was proceeded against under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 and there is nothing to suggest that the notice issued to the applicant was served on him.
6. There is no public person shown as witness. In this view of the matter I am of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against the applicant are in utter disregard to the provisions of the said Act and in the nature of the allegations and on the basis of such report the learned Tribunal was not correct to proceed against the applicant. State counsel has frankly conceded that the proceedings pending against the applicant are liable to be quashed. I am also of the same view.
7. ' Consequently Criminal Miscellaneous No, 403 of 1988 is allowed and the proceedings pending in the Court of S.D.M., Thatta in Case No, K-2 of 1988 are hereby quashed. The bail bonds executed by the applicant are also discharged.