' On 9-8-1992 Faiz Muhammad Niazi, S.H.O. Jamshed Quarters Police Station, Karachi, filed a report against applicant Abdul Rafiq alias Qasoo before S.D.M./Tribunal Jamshed Quarters, Karachi, for taking action against him under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. It was alleged that the applicant herein is by habit a criminal who earns his livelihood by gambling and selling narcotics and he is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, and is involved in 15 criminal cases. The Tribunal took cognizance against the applicant and issued warrant of arrest against him, although he was already in custody. An order under section 8(3)(b) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, was passed and the applicant was remanded to custody. It is in these circumstances that the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Mr. Jawaid Haider Kazmi, learned counsel for the applicant has raised various points but he eventaully confined his arguments in the main to the following contentions:--
(i) That the report of S.H.O. Jamshed Quarters Police Station was in complete disregard of the provisions of section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, and consequently the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction.
(ii) That the order purported to have been passed under section 8(3)(b) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, is mainly based on the statements of G. Muhammad Razaullah who were examined on 15-8-1992 long before taking the cognizance against the applicant on 12-10-1992, which is evident from the following order, dated 12-10-1992:- ' Report under section 14, S.C.C. Act received. Statements of P.Ws. Already recorded. Statement of S.H.O. Recorded today. Order under section 8(3)(b), S.C.C. Act, 1975, passed. Register the case. Put off to 26-10-1992. Issue N.B.W. Against the respondent with a copy of order under section 8(3)(b) of S.C.C. Act, 1975."
3. Section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, provides:- "Del ivery of copy of report. --- Every summons or warrant issued under section 5 shall he accompanied by a copy of the report and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under the same: ' Provided that the report shall briefly state---
(i) the acts with which the person complained is charged;
(ii) the details of time and place of such acts;
(iii) general repute of person complained or such other allegations made against him."
4. The report filed by S.H.O. Jamshed Quarters Police Station, did not state---
(i) acts with which the applicant is charged;
(ii) details of time and place of such acts; and
(iii) general repute of applicant or any other allegations against him."
' As observed in Jan Muhammad v. The State reported in PLD 1981 Karachi 682, the order of Tribunal based on such report is without jurisdiction.
' This question was also examined by me in Inayat v. The State reported in 1989 P Cr. L J 1115, and was answered in the following words:- "Like proviso to section 5, the proviso to section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, was not really a proviso in the accepted sense, but an independent legislative provision laying down the contents of the report to be served upon the person proceeded against. On the face of it the report filed by S.H.O. Sujawal Police Station, against the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The S.H.O. Sujawal Police Station, has tried to bring the case of the applicant within the mischief of clauses (xix), (xx) and (xxxi) of section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, but only vague allegations have been made with no details of time and place of such acts, as required under section 6. The report which is again the basis of proceedings under section 8 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, is intended to give sufficient notice to the person against whom the proceedings arc drawn, of the accusation made against him. Therefore, the report must set forth the substance of accusation alleged against the person proceeded with. If this is not done, the person proceeded against, cannot know till he comes to Tribunal precisely what he is charged with, and as no charge is drawn up in such proceedings, he may not know till the final order is passed, what his alleged fault is."
' Thus, the proceedings drawn against the applicant are liable to be quashed on this score alone.
5. Section 8(3)(b) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, whercunder the order, dated 12-10-1992 was passed provides as under:-- "8. Proceedings.---(1) When the person complained against appears or is brought before the Tribunal in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 5, the Tribunal shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the report upon which action has been taken, and to take evidence as may appear necessary.
(2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
(3) Pending the completion of the inquiry under the section if the Tribunal considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of the commission of the act complained against, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,--
(a) direct the person complained against to execute a bond, with or without sureties for maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or in default of execution until the inquiry is concluded; or
(b) instead of taking bond for appearance of such person, order his detention for such period as may be specified or till the conclusion of the inquiry, provided that such detention shall not exceed two months unless his case has been referred to the Commissioner and the latter has, for reasons to be recorded in writing, agreed to such detention for a further period not exceeding four months."
6. Reading the order, dated 12-10-1992 together with section 8 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, reproduced above, it is apparent that an order under subsection (3)(b) can he passed only after the person complained against appears or is brought before the Tribunal in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 5. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in putting the cart before the horse.
7. Faced with the above situation the learned A.A.-G. Has very little to say. Accordingly the application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is allowed and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, before S.D.M./Tribunal, Jamshed Quarters, Karachi, are quashed.
8. It is needless to observe that the above order is passed purely on technical grounds. There is, therefore, no bar for drawing fresh proceeding against the applicant keeping in view the above legal requirements.