1. ' Applicant Syed Abdul Rasool Shah son of Syed Abdul Ghafoor Shah resident of Village Pir-jo-Goth Taluka Ratodero District Larkana has challenged the proceedings, actions and orders passed by Tribunal Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratodero initiated on the basis of report filed by S.I.P. Allah Warayo Buriro S.H.O. Of Police Station Naodero on 19-3-1995. The complainant S.I.P. Allah Warayo Buriro has stated that applicant is residing within the jurisdiction of Police Station Naodero, that he used to commit offences in collusion with dangerous offenders of far off places who used to visit him, that he is habitual thief and also belongs to group of Mustoo dacoit and used to return the abductees after taking ransom amount for their return, that he has no other source of livelihood except committing crimes, that there is general complaint against him in the public and no body is prepared to give evidence against because of his fear and harassment, as such he files this report in the Court of Tribunal vis Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ratodero as proceedings No, 1 of 1995 under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act on 19-3-1995. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ratodero issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant and in consequences he was arrested on 21-3-1995. He was produced in Court of Tribunal and S.D.M. Ratodero who passed an order under section 5 of Sindh Crimes Control Act on the same day. Learned Tribunal passed another order under section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act on the next day i,e, 22-3-1995 against the applicant.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Ghulam Haider Baloch learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant. He submits that the report does not show any specific allegations of date, time and particulars of the incidents committed by the applicant and the report is based wholly and solely on general and vague allegations without any substance. In the report applicant is said to have been challaned in three cases (1) Crime No,13/1978 under sections 353, 323 and 34, P.P.C. (2) Crime No,25/1994 under sections 302, 353, 404, 148, 149, P.P.C. And 13-D Arms Ordinance and (3) Crime No,32 of 1995 under section 188, P.P.C. And the result of conviction and the ultimate disposal of the cases have not been mentioned in the report. The learned counsel further argues that provisions of section 5, 6 and 8(3)
(a) and (b) have also not been complied in this case by the Tribunal while taking cognizance of this matter. So much so that copies of the report as required under section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act have not been supplied to the applicant which is the basic requirement of law. In this case non-bailable warrants were issued directly without first issuing the summons for appearance which is also the mandatory provision as laid down in section 5 of Sindh Crimes Control Act. Admittedly no orders under section 8(3) (a) and (b) have also been passed in these proceedings and the applicant has been remanded to custody without observing the legal formalities laid down in this provision of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case-law PLD 1986 Kar. 648, 1987 PCr.LJ 2010, 1988 PCr.LJ 51. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that the proceedings have been initiated due to the enmity with local Zamindars of his locality, hence the proceedings may kindly be quashed taking into consideration the above factual and legal aspect of this matter.
3. ' Mr. Abdul Fatah Mughal learned counsel appearing for State has conceded that this matter required interference and quashment of the proceedings keeping in view that the mandatory provisions laid down under Sindh Crimes Control Act has not been properly complied with by the Tribunal. It is an admitted position that the mandatory provisions as laid down under sections 5, 6 and 8(3)(a) and (b) have not been complied with and is violated by the Tribunal while taking cognizance under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act against the applicant. The authorities cited by learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant also supports the contention raised by him. In case of Noor Ahmed alias Sheesho v. Station House Officer and another reported in PLD 1986 Kar. 648 Mr. Syed Abdur Reitman, J. Has held that police report containing vague and general allegations without any specific instance or details of any specific crime. Such police report is also silent with regard to conviction of petitioner in any one of the cases in which he was challaned.
4. Mandatory provisions of sections 5, 6 and 8 of Sindh Crimes Control Act held not complied with and police as well as Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted in manner contrary to law. In circumstances.
5. ' In the case of Shabbir Ahmed v. The State reported in 1987 PCr.LJ 2010 Mr. Nasir Aslam Zahid, J. Has held the perusal of police report, cognizance taken and order passed against accused showing that not a single specific allegation has been made out against him only vague and general allegations are levelled. Mandatory previsions of section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 had not been complied with . In 1988 PCr.LJ 51 Mr. Abdul Rasool Agha, J. Has held that police report against accused not containing any specific allegations and based on only vague allegations which lacked particulars and instances accused shown to have been challaned in two cases but ultimate disposal of these cases or stage of cases not given in report. Order passed against the accused in violation of mandatory provisions of sections 5 and 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975.
6. Cognizance taken and orders passed against the accused being not justified and .
7. Taking into consideration the above factual and legal position of these proceedings I have come to the conclusion that Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,52 of 1995 in respect of applicant Syed Abdul Rasool Shah the proceedings initiated under section 14 and orders passed against the applicant under sections 5 and 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 by Tribunal Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ratodero are not sustainable and have been passed in clear violation of mandatory law laid down under Sindh Crimes Control Act and are hereby quashed. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,52 of 1995 is therefore allowed.