Applicant Mukhtiar Ahmed has been sent to face the proceedings under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 by S.H.O. Mehar.
2. The S.H.O. Mehar moved the Court of S.D.M. And Tribunal by wing a report against the applicant on 15-8-1996 for an action under section 14/4 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. In this report it was mentioned by the S.H.O. That the applicant was a notorious drugs dealer, harbourer of criminals and that he roams about with deadly weapons in order to create harassment in public. The report further discloses that no person from the public was ready to come forward to give evidence against him or register case against him and that therefore, action under section Sindh Crimes Control Act may be taken against him. The report did not disclose as to in what crimes the applicant was involved previously and as to when and where the applicant had committed any crime and whether he was a previous convict. The list of witnesses which the S.H.O. Proposed to examine in support of his report showed the names of three police officials of the same police station in addition to the S.H.O. Himself.
3. It appears from the record of the case called from the Court of S.D.M. And Tribunal Mehar that on that very day S.D.M. Issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the applicant addressed to the S.H.O. Mehar for his appearance before the Court on 25-8-1996. Thus, non-bailable warrants appear to have been issued after the S.D.M. Recorded the statement of S.H.O. Mehar Mr. Dost Muhammad Mangario. It is significant to note that this statement of the S.H.O. Does not appear to have been recorded on oath. In the statement of Dost Muhammad Mangario the S.H.O. Mehar in general terms levelled same allegations as in the report. The record further shows that an order under section 5 of Sindh Crimes Control Act was passed by the S.D.M. Mehar on the same day i.e. 15-8-1996 holding that the remaining at large of the applicant was hazardous to the community.
4. The applicant was arrested and produced before the S.D.M. By the S.H.O. Mehar on 20-8-1996 on which date he was remanded to judicial lock-up at Mehar. On 25-8-1996, the record shows that an order under section 8/3(a) Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 was passed. The contents of this order speak that applicant is an active and habitual criminal and that he is a desperate person therefore, for immediately prevention of the commission of the acts complained against him he should execute a bond with two sureties of Zamindar class each solvent in the sum of Rs.25,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to maintain good behaviour till the completion of the inquiry. The applicant Mukhtiar Ahmed however, refuted all the allegations against him before the S.D.M. Mehar and claimed inquiry. Such plea of the applicant was also recorded in response to the formal charge framed against him by the S.D.M. Mehar. The applicant was supplied copy of the report filed against him by the police in the Court of S.D.M. The applicant who had been arrested and put behind the bars, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Before this Court and stated that he is a sick man aged about 45 years, suffers from chest disease, that his brother who had applied for the certified copy of the police report and orders passed by the S.D.M.
Was not issued any copy. The applicant further claimed that the report made by the police against him and the orders passed by the S.D.M., wherein contravention of the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act as interpreted by the superior Courts and that his involvement in the proceedings was illegal, mala fide and that the proceedings were in fact abuse of process of law as neither police had any record to show that the applicant had indulged in any crime nor the police had mentioned in the report the pieces of evidence against the applicant to prove the allegation. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 26-8-1996. Today the case is fixed for regular hearing.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Advocate-General.
Learned counsel for applicant apart from challenging the legality of the proceedings and the orders issued by the S.D.M. Has stated that in fact the applicant has never indulged in any crime and that on account of mala fide reasons the police has involved hira. Learned Additional Advocate-General after going through the record of the case has not supported the proceedings in the Court of S.D.M. And the orders passed by him, and stated that the proceedings before the S.D.M. Are abuse of the process of law and that the same ought to be quashed.
6. I have considered all the aspects of the case. Mere mention in the police report that the applicant was a notorious and hazardous criminal without specifying instances of his involvement in any incident or crime, was not enough to bring the case within the purview of the section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act.
7. In case of Haji Jam v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 1. This Court has already held, reports by the police should specifically mention the particulars of whatsoever acts have been committed by the applicant. The report should comprise the date, time and place of each act end copies of the previous reports or complaints against the applicant must be annexed with the report. These have been held to be essential requirements of the Act. It is clear that in this report such details are not given by the police.
8. In the case of A.I Bux v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 4, it was found that in the report the applicant was not shown to have been convicted in any case and the only witnesses cited against the applicant were Police Officers and the name of the criminals who were alleged to have been sheltered by the applicant were not given. In such circumstances, it had been held that the Magistrate had acted illegally by remanding the applicant to custody and had also acted illegally by passing an order under section 8(3) of the Act, as such material was not found enough. Similarly in this case the applicant appears to have been illegally sent to jail as the material available before the Magistrate did not justify issuance of non-bailable warrants against him specially in view of the above-cited two cases and many other cases decided by this Court on this point.
9. The police generally does not strictly comply with the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act while dealing with the criminals obviously on account of ignorance of the decisions of this Court interpreting the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act. The learned Magistrate in this case has also ignored the decisions of this Court.
10. In this case the applicant has not been alleged to be a previous convict. The specific instances of the crimes committed by him are lacking in the police report as well as in the orders passed by the S.D.M. The plain reading of the report as well as the orders show that the allegations are of the mechanical and general nature and can safely be termed as "vague". The non-involvement of the applicant in any case prior to this report, is surprising. The very preamble of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 shows that it has been enacted to provide effective machinery of law to prevent the commission and a repetition of crimes and to consolidate law relating to anti-social elements and disorderly persons in the Province of Sindh. A person against whom neither a report has been lodged nor any complaint has been received by the police cannot be said to be a habitual or repeater of crimes and therefore, the action under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act against the applicant in this case does not appear to be warranted by law.
11. I am clear in my mind if these proceedings are allowed to remain on record of the S.D.M. It will be abuse of the process of law and therefore invoking powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. I hereby order that the proceedings initiated against the applicant before the S.D.M. And Tribunal Mehar by S.H.O. Mehar under the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act are hereby quashed.