1. ' By this petition filed under Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated and the order passed in case No, 178 of 1981 pending before the respondent No, 1 in the Court of S.D.M. Nazimabad/Tribunal, Karachi.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that the S.H.O. SITE Police Station, Karachi against the petitioner submitted report/complaint in the Court of A.C. And S.D.M. Nazimabad Karachi/the respondent No,1 which was registered as Case No, 178 of 1981. In the said complaint/report it was alleged that against the petitioner various cases have been registered in which he has been challancd and is facing trial. Cases registered against the petitioner are (1) Case F.I.R. No, 30/76 under section 324, P.P.C. Pending in the Court of A.C.M. SITE Karachi, (2) Case F.I.R. No, 86/77 under section 324/34, P.P.C., pending in the Court of A.C.M., SITE Karachi (3) Case F.I.R. No, 301/77 under section 13-D Arms Ordinance Act in which the petitioner is facing trial (4) Case F.I.R. No, 85 of 1979 under section 324, P.P.C. Pending in the Court and (5) F.I.R. No, 214 of 1980 under section 307, P.P.C. Challaned and facing trial in the Court of A.C.M., SITE, Karachi.
3. ' In the aforementioned report it has also been stated by the S.H.O. That the petitioner is a bully type of person who creates fear in the general public by stabbing and keeping unlicensed arms in his possession and thus he has become hazardous for the locality.
4. ' In the proceedings initiated on the above report/complaint, the respondent No,1 issued non- bailable warrant against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner in the circumstances moved this Court making the prayer that the proceedings and the orders passed against him be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceedings initiated and the orders passed for issuance of non-bailable warrants against him have been taken/made without compliance of the relevant provisions of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 and that in none of the cases cited against the petitioner he has been convicted. The learned counsel placed reliance on a number of cases in support of his arguments. It is not necessary to refer to all these cases here, suffice it would be to refer to the case of Jan Muhammad v. The State PLD 1981 Kar. 682 wherein as explained in the earlier case of Muhammad Siddique v. The State PLD 1979 Kar. 229 the learned Judge observed:- "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."
7. ' Reference may also be made to the case of Aftab Alam alias Matoo v. The Province of Sind PLD 1979 Kar. 645 in which the principles have ,been explained as follows:- "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."
8. In view of the consistent view taken by this Court and other superior Courts of our country, Mr. M.I.
9. Memon, learned A.A.-G. Does not oppose the petition.
10. ' Having considered the case in the light of the above discussion I have no hesitation in holding that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the orders passed therein are not in accordance with the law, the same therefore, arc hereby declared as having been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect.