1. The applicant in this application has challenged the proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 pending in the Court of S.D.M./Tribunal Sijawal consequent to a report made by A.S.I. Deen Muhammad acting as S.H.O. Sinawal under section 14 of the said Act against the applicant. On receipt of report on 30-6-1988 the learned Tribunal passed orders under section 8(2) of the said Act which order was in the nature of show-cause notice but simultaneously the applicant was sent to jail custody.
2. Mr. Nooruddin Sarki has appeared for the applicant and none has appeared for the State.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the non--bailable warrants were issued against the applicant without recording any evidence which is violation of section 5 of the Act. The report was submitted by S.H.O. Sijawal on 30-6-1988 and on a mere request without recording evidence of the S.H.O. The order under section 4/5 was passed and in the first instance N.B.W.
4. Against the applicant was issued. The learned counsel has filed the case diary according to which on two hearings the applicant was not produced and was shown to be in custody in a substantive offence under section 379, P.P.C. In the Sub-Jail of Sijawal and on his production on 13-6-1988 order under section 8(2) of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 was passed and there is nothing to show that the said order was either supplied to the applicant or was read over to him. The perusal of report shows that there is no instance, date or place of the commission of act with which applicant is charged. From the list of the pending cases it appears that the applicant has been challaned in four cases, out of which three are of P.S. Bathoro.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged that in absence of service of notice and the violation of section 6 of the Act according to I which details and specific time, place and acts are to be mentioned, in the report submitted to the S.D.M./Tribunal and unless there is compliance of such mandatory provisions, cognizance could not be taken. It is further contended by the learned counsel that these provisions are, mandatory and in support of his contention he has relied upon the reported decisions in 1987 P Cr. L J 2010, 1988 P Cr. L J 619 and 1984 P Cr. L J 353.
6. Apart from these decisions he has referred I to score of other decisions whereby in the similar circumstances the proceedings under Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 due to the violation of the mandatory provisions have been quashed.
7. Mr. Hayat A.I Pirzada, learned counsel for the State was present in the morning who was put in charge of this case but when this case was called he was absent. In view of the fact that the requirements of the law have not been complied with which are on the face of i. Lacking in the matter, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant I am of the view that no useful purpose would E be served to keep this matter pending for the appearance of the State counsel. In this clear view of the factual and legal aspect of the case, I allow Criminal Miscellaneous No. 365 of 1988 and the proceedings and the orders passed by the S.D.M. Sijawal cannot be sustained under the law.
8. Consequently the proceedings are quashed. The applicant is on bail, his bail bond is discharged.