1. ' Applicant Abdul Mannan has moved for quashment of the proceedings pending under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act (hereafter to be mentioned as the Act) in Court of the Tribunal and S.D.M., Mehar.
2. ' According to the police report, the applicant is habitual offender and criminal. He has been committing thefts and abeting commission of thefts. He has been disposing of stolen property on "Bhung". He has been committing offences with notorious criminals, visiting him from distant places. Applicant is also alleged to be having link with notorious dacoit Gulab and has been supplying ammunition to him. The applicant is also indulging in the narcotics and he has been teasing the school going boys and girls.
3. ' On receiving police report, the Tribunal and S.D.M., Mehar took cognizance and issued N.B.W.S. For the applicant and when the applicant was produced before the Tribunal an order under section 8/3(b) of the Act was passed and the applicant was remanded to custody. A charge was also framed to which the applicant pleaded not guilty.
4. ' Mr. Rafique Khanzada learned counsel for the applicant argued that the allegations against the applicant were vague and general and that the applicant was not accused in any criminal case and that all the witnesses cited against him were Police Officers.
5. ' Mr. Zaheer Qureshi, Advocate for A.-G. Sindh for State did not oppose the application.
6. Allegations against the applicant are general and vague. Names of victims of thefts, have not been given. Names of criminals visiting the applicant, have not been given, except of one Gulab. All the allegations are of routine kind. The particulars required to be given under the proviso below section 6 of the Act have not been given. All the witnesses cited against the applicant are Police Officers.
7. The. Tribunal on receiving the police report, issued warrant of arrest for the applicant.
8. ' Proceedings under section 14 of the Act were quashed in the cases of Ali Bux v. S.D.M., Naushahro Feroze 1988 PCr.LJ 619, Noor Ahmad alias Shishoo v. S.H.O. And another PLD 1986 Kar. 648 and Amir Ali and others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 30 on the ground that the allegations against the applicants were general and vague. In the case of Muhammad v. S.D.M. And Tribunal, Mirpur Sakro 1983 PCr.LJ 439 the view taken was that passing of an order for issuance of NBW as well as taking of cognizance on the basis of the police report containing general and vague allegations was without jurisdiction and in complete violation of sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
9. ' The present case is not different from the cited cases. Consequently present application stands accepted and the proceedings pending against -the applicant under section 14 of the Act in Court of the Tribunal and S.D.M., Mehar are quashed.