' The applicant has moved for abashment of proceedings pending against him under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control. Act in the Court of S.D.M., Larkana.
2. According to police report submitted on 26-11-1995 being Karvai No,9/95 under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 stating therein that there are complaints against the applicant viz. Thieves from different places visit this Badmash and reside with him and also take meals. This Badmash has no source of livelihood and he receives the Bhung and disposes the property of theft.
This Badmash is in habit of forming gang with the help of arms and use to get offences committed.
This Badmash misbehaves with the ladies and young boys. That this Badmash gives proposals to young boys to use narcotics and also force them for unnatural offences. That this Badmash is against the present Government. That due to fear of this Badmash no body from public is coming forward to give the evidence against him. That this Badmash is dangerous for the public and his remaining in jail is must. The S.H.O. Abdul Majeed Jarwar of Police Station Bakrani further submitted in his report that a non-bailable warrant against him be issued so that he may be arrested and produced before the Court. The S.H.O. Further cited the list of the following crimes to support his version:
(1) Crime No,10/1980 under section 9, Hudood Ordinance.
(2) Crime No,28/1983 under sections 323, 324, 524, 147, 148, P.P.C.
(3) Crime No,97/1987 under section 302, 307 of Police Station Larkana.
(4) Crime No,9/1994 under section 302, P.P.C.
(5) Crime No,54/1994 under Article 3/4, Hudood Ordinance. And further cited the list of the witnesses as:--
(1) S.H.O. Abdul Majeed Jarwar of Police Station Bakrani.
(2) A.S.I. Muhammad Ramzan Sangi.
3. On receipt of police report the S.D.M. And Tribunal, Larkana took the cognizance of the case on the same day and issued non-boilable warrants. That on 27-11-1995 learned S.D.M. And Tribunal, Larkana passed- order under section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act to which the applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be heard according to law.
4. I have heard Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, Advocate for the applicant so also Mr. Muhammad Bachal Tunio, Additional Advocate-General and with their assistance perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the allegations against the applicant are vague in nature and no specific instance has been quoted. According to him five cases mentioned in the report, copies of these F.I.Rs, have not been supplied nor the applicant has been challaned in these crimes and these crimes according to him pertain to 1980, 1983, 1987 and 1994. He has further argued that it is very strange that the crime mentioned against the applicant as stated in the report falls under section 302, P.P.C. And pertains to years 1987 and 1984 but in spite of that he was never arrested nor challaned till today. According to him the report is fake and the applicant has never been challaned in any crime. That even in the report no specific allegation has been alleged. He has further argued that the applicant is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved otherwise. He has further argued that the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal has violated ingredients of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. According to section 5 which reads as under:-- "On receipt of the report the Tribunal shall issue a summon requiring a 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." ' but here the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal without applying his judicial mind instead of issuing summons has issued non-boilable warrants on the report of S.H.O. Without assigning any reason.
He has further argued that the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal has not cared to follow sections 6 and 8 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. Learned Additional Advocate-General has opposed and has argued that the applicant is involved in five cases as such he supports the order of the S.D.M. And Tribunal, Larkana.
5. I have heard the arguments of both the counsel and with their assistance perused the record. It is a settled law and section 5 of this Act provides that initially on receipt of the report Tribunal shall issue a summon, however, the Tribunal if satisfied can issue a warrant of his arrest but for that the Tribunal has to give reasons. The perusal of the record shows that the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal without giving reasons and applying his judicial mind has issued non-boilable warrants on the simple report of the S.H.O. And has not cared to go through the requirements of section 5 of the Act.
He has also violated section 6 of this Act as copies of the crimes cited in the report have not been supplied to the applicant. The report of the S.H.O. Is in violation of section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 as such it is nullity in the eyes of law. Mere filing of a list of the cases along with the report will not absolve the S.H.O. From the responsibilities nor it can fulfill the requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. According to law the Tribunal is not bound to issue summons on police report and it is the duty of the Tribunal to verify the same and to see whether the report is 'complete in accordance with section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 before issuing any process under section 5 of this Act. It is the duty of the Tribunal to apply judicial mind and scrutinize the report before issuing non-boilable warrants of arrest as it is the question of a person's liberty as it is a well-known proverb that it is better to acquit a criminal than to hang an innocent. The bare reading of section 6 of this Act is that:--
(1) It must briefly state the act with which the person complained against is charged.
(2) The details of crime and the time and place of said acts.
(3) General reputation of a person complained or other allegation made against him.
6. I am of the view that in this case the police has failed to give the details, time and place of the alleged offence and has simply cited five cases dated back to 1980 up to 1994 and the copies of the same have neither been supplied to the Tribunal nor to the applicant, nor the applicant has been challenged in these cases as yet. As for the bad reputation of the applicant, it is A not supported by any evidence on record nor a single witness from the public has been cited against the applicant. Mere fact that in the report of the S.H.O. Dated 26-11-1995 the applicant has been shown to be involved in five cases could not be sufficient to bring his case within purview of the section 14 of this Act. Mere mentioning that the applicant has a bad reputation and he is a Badmash and criminal without specifying the instances or involved in any incident of breach of peace as the cases mentioned against the applicant have not been challenged is not sufficient to bring the applicant within the purview of section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. As stated above the Tribunal has not cared to follow sections 5, 6 and 8 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 and has not applied his judicial mind and has straightaway issued non-boilable warrants on the report of S.H.O. Admittedly section 5 of this Act authorizes the Tribunal to issue warrant but for that Tribunal has to assign the reasons which lacks in this case. In the above circumstances pendency of the proceedings under section 14 of the Act against the applicant amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently this application is accepted and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14 of the. Act in the Court of S.D.M. And Tribunal, Larkana are hereby quashed.