1. ' Applicant Sohail Shahzad has moved for quashment of the proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act (hereafter to be mentioned as the Act) pending against him in Court of the S.D.M. And Tribunal Jamshed Quarters, Karachi.
2. ' Report of the S.H.O. Against the applicant reads as follows:--- "That he is known criminal and is involved in many cases of this P.S. He is so desperate and dangerous that if he is not detained under preventive action he will create law and order situation and will destroy the public peace."
3. ' The applicant is shown to be an accused in four cases.
4. ' On receiving the police report, the Tribunal passed order under section 8(3)(a) of the Act calling upon the applicant to execute a bond in sum of Rs,25,000 with one surety in the like amount for maintaining good behaviour till conclusion of the enquiry. Besides this the case was registered and warrants were ordered to be issued against the applicant.
5. ' Mr. Shafi Muhammadi, Advocate for the applicant argued that the allegations against the applicant were general and vague and short of particulars and instances required to be given under proviso below section 6 of the Act and that mere mention of the cases in which the applicant is the accused does not amount to supplying the particulars required to be supplied under the said proviso. He also argued that not a single witness has been cited against the applicant.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Hayat Qureshi appearing for State conceded that specific particulars and instances have not been given in the police report. He pointed out that there were four cases pending against the applicant.
7. ' In the case of Nizamuddin v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 650 it was held that a mere list of cases in which a person was challaned cannot be a substitute for statement of particulars to be given under section 5 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance. In the case of Aftab Alam alias Matoo v. Province of Sindh and others PLD 1979 Kar. 645 it was observed that 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 abettor of such crime. No witness is cited against the applicant except complainant Safdar Sultana a police officer. In the case of Noor Muhammad alias Noorul v. The State 1975 PCr.LJ 1025 the view taken was that a mere statement made by a S.H.O. In his report that the petitioner had a reputation of notorious and hazardous criminal without specifying the instances of his being involved in any incident or breach of the peace or acting in a desperate and dangerous manner, was not sufficient for taking action. Proceedings under section 14 of the Act were quashed in the cases of Rajab Ali v.
8. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 2865, Lal Bakhsh v. The State PLD 1988 Kar. 599 and Krishan v. Tribunal & SDM, City Hyderabad and another 1980 PCr.LJ 1198 on the grounds that the applications against the persons proceeded against, were vague and short of particulars and instances.
9. ' For the foregoing reasons this application is accepted and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14 of the Act in Court of the SDM. And Tribunal Jamshed Quarters are hereby quashed.