' This is an application under sections 435, 439 and 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of the proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Piz Act) pending before the learned Tribunal/S.D.M. City South, Karachi against the applicant.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that S.H.O. Chakiwara Police Station, Karachi filed a complaint before the S.D.M. City Karachi South alleging therein that the applicant had committed the following cognizable offences since the year 1983 and still he was active.
S. No.F.I.R. No. and Section P.S. Result of law.
(1) 131/83 under section 3/4 Prohibition Ordinance.Chakiwaraconvicted (2)72/83 under section 3/4 Prohibition Ordinance.ChakiwaraConvicted (3)151/84 under section 3/4 Prohibition Ordinance.ChakiwaraConvicted (4)5/87 under section 3/4 Prohibition Ordinance.ChakiwaraConvicted (5)252/87 under section 4 Prohibition Ordinance ChakiwaraPending (6)357/88 under section 3/4 Prohibition Ordinance.ChakiwaraPending
3. It was further alleged therein that the applicant was previously arrested in the cases mentioned in the complaint and after release from the jail again started his nefarious activities and, therefore, the life of the general public and property was unsafe due to his bad activities and that he was totally bent towards crimes. It was, therefore, requested that cognizance under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act be taken against him so that the lives and property of general public may be saved from his clutches. In the complaint list of six cases was given which are all under section 3/4 of the Prohibition Ordinance. It is further shown therein that the applicant was convicted in four cases, while two are still pending against him.
4. On the above complaint the learned S.D.M./Tribunal passed an order to the effect that the complaint was lodged by the S.H.O. That the applicant had no means of income except selling of Heroin and that he was very dangerous and hazardous person and a black sheep for society and that if he was left free, he would commit heinous offences. As the applicant was in jail, it was feared that on his release he might start his criminal activities. He was, therefore, ordered to furnish two solvent sureties from the locality in the sum of Rs,10,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount until the enquiry was concluded.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint is vague and does not disclose the particulars as to the place and time of the offences allegedly committed by the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned S.D.M./Tribunal has passed the impugned order without applying his mind and without observing the requirement of law. It is submitted that the learned S.D.M./Tribunal has observed that in the complaint it is alleged that the applicant has no means of income, except selling of Heroin, but in fact there is no such allegation in the complaint. The mere fact that the applicant is shown to have been challaned or convicted under section 3/4 of the Prohibition Ordinance, would not necessarily imply or show that he was alleged to have committed offences of selling or possessing Heroin as it could be any other intoxicant. It is further submitted that the complainant has not collected proper facts, as when asked to produce the record of conviction of the applicant, S.H.O. Abdul Rasool of Chakiwara Police Station had disclosed conviction of the applicant in two cases only and not in four cases, as alleged in the complaint. It is further alleged that even the S.H.O. Was not clear as to how many cases were pending against the applicant and he gave the number to be 2 or 3, whereas only two cases are pending. It is further submitted that the provisions of section 6 of the Act have also not been complied with, which provides that the copy of the report under section 4(b) of the Act of the Police Officer is to be delivered to the accused person and such report should briefly state; (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 against or such other allegations made against him. It is submitted that these particulars are not shown in the report/complaint of the S.H.O. It is also submitted that all the witnesses shown in the report/complaint arc Police Officers and not private persons of the locality. Accordingly the listed persons who allegedly instituted against the applicant are cited as witnesses.
6. Mr. Muhammad Akbar learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon number of cases in support of his contntion. In the case of Mst. Zarina v. Tribunal/S.D.M., Liaquatabad 1987 P Cr. L J 55 a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the proceedings under Sind Crimes Control Act, where the Tribunal/S.D.M. Did not apply his mind to the facts of the case of the petitioner and passed order of furnishing security by the petitioner under section 8(2) of the Act without holding enquiry. It was held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal in violation of the provisions of sections 5, 6 and 8(3)(a) of Act was void and all orders passed were without lawful authority. In the case of James and 3 others v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 1345 proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act were quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, where report submitted by police was wholly vague and lacking in particulars giving no details of time, date and place of acts. Similar view was taken in the case of Hazrat v. S.D.M./Tribunal, Nawabshah 1987 P Cr. L J 1231 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
7. In the instant case also as pointed above, the report lodged by the Police Officer is vague and does not show any details of time, date and place of acts/crimes committed by the applicant. The reasons given by the learned S.D.M./Tribunal for assuming jurisdiction and ordering the furnishing of security by the applicant, are not mentioned in the report of the Police Officer and the order does not show that any enquiry was held by the learned S.D.M./Tribunal.
' Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the proceedings are liable to be quashed, as the orders passed by the learned S.D.M./Tribunal are void and of nol legal force. Orders accordingly.