1. ' This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Moved on behalf of the applicant Rasool Bux Bhugro son of Khuda Bux Machhi whereby he has challenged the proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 pending before the S.D.M., Hala.
2. ' The proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, have been instituted against the' applicant on the basis of a Police Report submitted by S.H.O. Police Station Hala. The learned Tribunal took cognizance. On this police report. The applicant is now said to be facing proceedings before S.D.M./Tribunal, Hala.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed Bhatti, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, AA.-G. For the State. The latter has not opposed this application.
4. ' It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the perusal of the police report on the basis of which cognizance has been taken, clearly indicates that it contains vague and general allegations like for example that the applicant is a famous offender, many absconders, dacoits from far off places, are visiting him, they commit offences and he gives them shelter, food, weapons to other offenders. They also kidnap people and that the applicant is a dangerous person. These allegations are of the kind which can be made by any Police Officer against any person. But the fact remains that the mandatory requirement of section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 has not been complied. Under section 6 of the said Act the Police Officer who submits the police report, is required to give the details of the time and place of the act complained of. The police report submitted in this case is completely devoid of such details. This will go to show that cognizance which has been taken by the Tribunal/S.D.M. Was a mechanical one, without application of mind. This is apparent from the face of the record. As already mentioned the police report does not contain details as required by section 6 and this aspect of the matter was completely overlooked by the learned Tribunal at the time of taking cognizance.
5. It goes without saying that these proceedings are not punitive in nature but they are preventive in nature. These proceedings primarily deal with the liberty of a citizen and it also calls in question character and reputation of the person proceeded against. In this view of the matter it becomes necessary to have firsthand information regarding the antecedents of the applicant. Evidence regarding character of the person can be collected only through first hand information. This can only be done if some witnesses were examined who hail from round about the place of residence of the applicant. In the present case the police report shows that witnesses cited are police personnel. Moreover, three cases are shown to have been registered against the applicant but the result and the fate of these cases have not been mentioned. In this view of the matter the proceedings if allowed to continue will virtually amount to harassment of the applicant and the same cannot be allowed to be done.
6. ' In the result I am of the considered view that the proceedings against the applicant have been resorted to in a mechnical manner. It clearly amounts to an abuse of the process of Court and therefore, if the same is allowed to continue it will operate or perpetuate a grave injustice. In these circumstances this application is allowed, proceedings pending against the applicant before the learned S.D.M./Tribunal Hala are hereby quashed. The applicant is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. .