JUDGMENT ABDUL LATIF QURESHI, J.- This application has been filed Section 561-A Cr.P.C, for quashment ol proceedings pending against the applicant u/S. 14 of Sindh Crime Control Act in the Court of Tribunal and SDM Eidgah, Karachi South. These proceedings were initiated on complaint made by SHO Napier Police Station, Karachi alleging therein that the applicant by habit do the business of pimping of prostitution.^ and sell of narcotics, It is further alleged that he has been challaned in 7 criminal cases out of which, in two cases he was convicted, in one case acquitted by way of. Compromise and in for cases he still facing trial, It is further alleged that applicant is a criminal and hazardous for the public.
2. The learned SDM ordered that the statement of SHO be recorded. Case were ordered to be registered and non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant on 21.7.1993.
3. Against this order the applicant has approached this Court for quashment of proceedings.
4. The learned advocate for the applicant contended this the allegation against the applicant are vague, and neither therein mention the place and time of incident; nor any specific instance is in the report. So far list of the cases against the applicant is concerned. The learned advocate contends that one case pertains the year 1986, another 1989 but in both these cases the applicant has been acquitted in appeal. For remaining cases which is pending against the applicant, he contends that he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. He further contends that even in for cases which pending against the applicant, the SHO has not mentioned the place and time of incident, and facts of the allegations constituting those offences. Proceedings against the applicant has been initiated on 21.7.1993 and the list of cases registered against him reveals that last case was registered in the year 1992 and previous to this case was registered against the applicant in 1990 which shows that he is. Not habitual offender. He further contends that the learned Magistrate issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the applicant instead of summons.
5. Mr. Ashiq Raza, advocate for the State does not oppose this application and concedes that there is no material before the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance and issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant against the applicant.
6. I have gone through the record, and heard arguments of the learned advocate for the applicant, It has been generally held that essential requirement for taking cognizance on Police report against the applicant is that it must briefly State (i) the acts with which the person complained against is charged, (ii) the details of time and place of said acts and (iii) general repute of a person complained or such Other allegations made against nun.
7. In this case report by the police does not give detail and time of place of the alleged offences.
Bad reputation of applicant is not corroborated by the evidence any public personal. Mere fact that a person is suspected in some offence, or offences or even that he was challaned in respect of certain offences would not be sufficient to bring his case within the purview of section 14 of the Act.
Mere mention that the applicant had a bad reputation of being notorious and hazardous criminal without specifying the instances or being involved in any incident or breach of peace and the mere citation in the report of some cases without indicating the result was not sufficient to bring the case of the applicant within the purview of section 14 of the Crime Act.
8. Section 5 of the Sindh Crime Control Act lays down that no receipt of the report, the Tribunal shall issue a summon requiring the person complained against to appear. Of course proviso to that section empowers tribunal to issue warrant of the arrest, but in that case tribunal has to record reasons roding. No reason for taking drastic step by issuing warrants, has been given by the Magistrate, which clearly indicate that he has not properly applied his mind while taking cognizance of the matter. Reliance has been placed in case of Haji Jan v. The State reported in 1994 Pak.
9. I am of the view the continuation of proceedings against the applicant is clearly abuse of the process of the Court, In view of the above discussion I quash the proceeding initiated against the appellant. These are the reasons of my short order already announced.