' Applicant is facing proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1975) before the Tribunal/ S.D.M., Mehar and therefore, has filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for quashment of the same. With this petition, applicant was not able to file certified copy of any order passed by the learned S D.M., therefore, on 21-8-1996 he was granted exemption and the R&P was called from the Tribunal/S. D M., Mehar.
2. On 28-7-1996 S.H.O., Police Station Thariri Mohabat filed a report under section 14/4 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 before the S.D.M., Mehar alleging therein that there are general complaints against the applicant that he is notorious and dangerous criminal; that he is habitual thief and indulges in disposal of stolen properties; he is involved in collecting "Bhung" (ransom); that criminals of far off places use to visit him and he provides them shelter and serves meals; that he also supplies them weapons for the commission of crimes; that he also acts as informant of dacoits and has links with notorious dacoit like Mashooq Malmo; that he instigates youngsters to commit crimes and always moves in public places with deadly weapons; that due to his fear and harassm ent, no one from public is prepared to depose against him and that his remaining at large is hazardous for the public safety. The S.H.O., cited himself and three other Police Constables as witnesses in support of above allegations.
3. Again on 30-7-1996 the statement of S.I.P., Muhammad Mithal Solangi, S.H.O., was recorded before the Tribunal/S.D.M., Mehar in absence of applicant when same allegations as of complaint were reiterated by him without disclosing any specific dates, nature and other details of alleged offences. On such statement, learned Tribunal passed order under section 5 of the Act, 1975 issuing non-bailable warrants against the applicant who was arrested and was produced before the Tribunal on 1-8-1996. Applicant was directed to furnish surety in the sum of Rs,25,000 which he was not able to produce as at the relevant time he was in custody and therefore, he was remanded to the police custody by the learned Tribunal. On 1-8-1996, he was again produced before the Tribunal when formal charge was framed and he was called upon to show cause as to why he may not be required to execute bond with two sureties of "Zamindari Class" in the sum of Rs,25,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to maintain good behaviour for a period of 12 months. Following are the contents of the said charge which was recorded as Exhibit 2:-- "I, Muhammad Ahsan Rana, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehar do hereby charge you:
1. Buxial Shah son of Niaz Ali Shah that you are residing within the local limits of this Court/Tribunal and habitually commit the following acts:
(1) You are notorious thief, habitually receive stolen property and dispose of the same on Bhung money.
(2) You frequently possess and carry deadly weapons with an intention to create terror amongst the people of the area.
(3) You are so dangerous and desperate that your further remaining at large without security is hazardous to the community. You are, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why you should not be ordered to execute bond with two sureties of Zamindari class each solvent in the sum of Rs,25,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to maintain good behaviour for the period of 12 (twelve) months, to the satisfaction of this Court/Tribunal."
4. It is pertinent to note that Exh.3 which is the plea of applicant recorded by the Tribunal in reply to the abovementioned charge, indicates that the applicant has pleaded not guilty and has claimed enquiry but the entire R&P is silent whether any enquiry was conducted except one solitary statement of S.H.O., which was recorded on 30-7-1996 prior to arrest of the applicant. It is further pertinent to note that on the same date i,e, 1-8-1996 interlocutory orders under section 8(3)(a) of the Act, 1975 was passed in the same manner as of the show- cause/charge (Exh.2).
5. I have heard Mr. Abdul Fatah Mughal, Advocate for the applicant who has strenuously argued that the initial complaint by the S.H.O., as well as orders passed thereon by the learned Tribunal are illegal and void inasmuch as none of the provisions of the Act, 1975 was complied either by the S.H.O., or by the Tribunal. He has referred to the case Nisar v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 102, Asghar v.
S.D.M., Mehar 1996 PCr.LJ 107 and unreported case of this Court Ghulam Hussain v. The State Criminal Miscellaneous No,116 of 1995 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court quashed the proceedings pending before the Tribunal under the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 more or less,- on the same ground and facts.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the order, dated 1-8-1996 passed under section 8(3)(a) of the Act, 1975 by the Tribunal was not warranted as there was no satisfactory material before the learned Tribunal on the basis of which it can be concluded that there was need for adopting immediate measure for prevention of commission of any act complained. In my opinion, this plea has force inasmuch as the allegation before the learned Tribunal was that he is an active and habitual criminal and was a man of dangerous and desperate nature. Except the bare allegation there was no other material before the learned Tribunal. The initial complaint was also silent on material particulars and other details about the applicant, therefore, his immediate detection was not necessary in order to prevent the so-called commission of act complained. Time and again, superior Courts of Pakistan have held that such are wild and vague allegations and on such allegations neither warrants nor summons can be issued nor any person can be arrested. The law envisages that the complaint before the Tribunal should be with full details and with all material particulars. For reference see the case of Haji Ali Muhammad Solangi v. Tribunal/S.D.M., Nazirnabad, Karachi PLD 1980 Kar. 267 and Nazimuddin v.
The State PLD 1986 Kar.
615.
7. In the present case the entire proceedings was concluded withir. a span of two days and during all this period applicant/accused was in police custody.
' The allegations made in the complaint as well as in the statement of S.H.O., are of vague and wild in nature and lacking material particulars. Witnesses cited in the complaint are all police constables of the same police station as of the complainant and working under the authority of said complainant/S.H.O. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the enquiry as conducted by the S.D.M./Tribunal, Mehar (Muhammad Ahsan Rana) was in accordance with the provisions of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. I would like to observe that frequent resort to subsection 3(a) to section 8 of the Act, 1975, without first holding preliminary enquiry under subsections (1) and (2) and without application of judicious and conscious approach to the attending circumstances leads to the same result as of the instant case which is the abuse of process of law. Detention of a person can only be allowed, if it is "necessary", as provided under the Act, 1975.
8. As a result of above discussion, I allow this petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And quash the abovementioned proceedings pending before the Tribunal/S.D.M., Mehar.