1. ' This application has been filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of the proceedings against the applicant initiated by S.D.M. Mehar on the report of S.H.O., Police Station Mehar filed on 15-6-1994 under section 14(4) of Sindh Crimes Control Act. The proceedings were initiated on the complaint made by S.H.O. Mehr alleging therein that applicant is a Badmash; there is general complaint against him that notorious thieves from distant places visit him; that he serves meals to them; he also supplies deadly weapons to them and gets the theft committed and disposes of the stolen property on Bhung. It is further alleged that the applicant also commits the crimes armed with lethal weapons. There is also allegation that due to his fear, general public is not prepared to report and give evidence against him. It is also alleged against him that he gives information to criminals about the movement of police. On the same date viz. 15-6-1994 the learned S.D.M.
2. Ordered that .The statement of S.H.O. Be .Ecorded and the case be registered and N.B.Ws. Were issued against the applicant.
3. ' The applicant submitted that the allegations against him are vague in nature and no specific instance has been quoted, as such provisions of section 14(4) of Sindh Crimes Control Act do not apply; that no private person has been cited as a witness; that even the father's name of the applicant has been changed as he is son of Fakir Muhammad but in the report, he has been shown as son of Faiz Muhammad; that there is no mention of any crime nor there is mention of place or time of any incident except one case being Crime. No,39/1994 under sections 307, 353, 402, 399, 148, 149, P.P.C. Read with 324, Q&D Ordinance which according to the applicant is pending and is subjudice before the Court. He has submitted that in the above mentioned case which is pending in the Court being Crime No,39/1994 he is presumed to be innocent till proved otherwise; proceedings against him have been initiated on 15-6-1994 and there is only one case cited which also does not involve the moral optitude and is a case, under section 307, P.P.C. Which is also pending and yet to be proved. He has further submitted that the learned S.D.M., Mehar has violated the provisions of law and has not applied his judicial mind by issuing directly N.B.Ws. Instead of summons as provided by section 5 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Fateh Mughal, Advocate for the State does not oppose this application and concedes and states that there was no material before the learned S.D.M., Mehar for taking cognizance and issuing N.B.Ws. Against the applicant straightaway.
5. I have gone through the record and have heard the applicant and also the State counsel and have perused the record. It is a settled law that initial requirement for taking cognizance on police report against the applicant under section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act is that it must briefly state (i) the act with which the person complained against is charged (ii) the details of crime and the time and place of said acts (iii) and general reputation of a person complained or such allegations made against him. I am of the view that in this case the police has not given the detail, time and place of the alleged offence. Bad reputation of the applicant is not supported by the evidence of any public person. Mere fact that the applicant is challaned in one crime could not be sufficient to bring his case within the purview of section 14 of the Act. Mere mention that the applicant has bad reputation and being notorious and criminal without specifying the instance or being involved in any incident or breach of peace and mere citation in the report of one case which is also subjudiced and has not been decided as yet is not sufficient to bring the case of the applicant within the purview of section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. Section 5 of the Act lays down that on receipt of the report, Tribunal shall issue a summon requiring the person complained against to appear or when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is, to produce him before it. Of course proviso to this section empowers the Tribunal to issue warrant of the arrest but in that case Tribunal has to record reasons. In this particular case, no reason for taking drastic step by issuing N.B.Ws. Straightaway, has been given by the S.D.M., Mehar which clearly indicates that he has not properly applied his mind while taking cognizance of the matter. Reliance can be placed to the case of Haji Jam v. The State reported in 1994 PCr.LJ 1. I am of the view that continuing of proceedings against the applicant which are pending since 15-6- 1994 more than one year are clearly abuse of the process of the Court.
6. ' In view of the above discussion, I have already quashed the proceedings initiated against the applicant on 20-8-1995 and these are the reasons of my short order already announced. .