1. ' ABDUL QADIR HALEPOTA, J.-This constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner above- named to challenge the proceedings pending against Abdul Sattar s/o Abdul Fatah (hereinafter referred to as the detenu), under Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. ' Briefly stated this petition has arisen out of the following facts ' The detenu along with some other students was arrested in connection with Crime No, 14 of 1975 under section 302, P. P. C. On 9th February 1975.
3. ' The detenu was released on bail by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana by his order dated 25th November, 1975. The detenu was thus released on 26-11-1975 from Central Prison, Sukkur in pursuance of the said order.
4. ' It is alleged that the one A. S. I. Of Police along with two policemen in plain clothes came at the residence of the petitioner and took away the detenu forcibly without showing any warrant or order of detention. The petitioner is said to have sent telegrams Annexures 'C', 'C-1', & 'D' to 'D-3' complaining about the illegal arrest and detention of the detenu. It is further alleged that the apprehensions of the petitioner regarding the false involvement of the detenu came true when it was learnt that the detenu was involved in proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.
5. ' It appears that on 29-11-1975 City Police Inspector Manzoor Ali Wagon S. H.
6. 0., Town Police Station, Larkana filed a complaint under section 14 of the Act, against the detenu alleging therein that the detenu was disorderly in public and disturbed public peace; that the detenu was in the habit of creating hatred in between the different classes with a view to disturb public peace and the administration; that the dentenu frequently resorted to stoning public vehicles, causing damage to public property and that the detenu abetted the commission of acts, mentioned hereinabove. Two instances were cited in the complaint under reference. It was alleged that at about noon time on 28-11-1975 the detenu along with his associates raised slogans in. Shahi Bazar, created hatred between the different classes and disturbed administration and public peace. Again on 29-11-1975 at about 8-30 a.m. The detenu alongwith his associates raised slogans on a road going to Fish Market and by stoning damaged the public vehicles with a view to create hatred in-between different classes and disturbed the administration. It was further alleged that the detenu was a bad character. He was a dangerous and desperate person and was also nuisance for the public and that he was also challaned in Crime No, 14/75 under section 300, P. P. C.
7. Of Town Police Station, Larkana. In all five witnesses were cited in the complaint referred to here inabove. All the five witnesses belong to police personnel.
8. ' Upon the receipt of this report the learned Tribunal took cognizance and issued a warrant for the arrest of the detenu. The detenu was consequently arrested in persuance of the said warrant of arrest and produced before the learned Tribunal. The complainant Manzoor All filed an application under section 8(3)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal examined Manzoor Ali and one Police Constable Mohammad Punhal and came to the conclusion that immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of the commission of the acts complained against the detenu. He therefore, ordered detention of the detenu till conclusion of the enquiry. This order was passed under section 8(3)(b) on 1-12-1975.
9. ' Mr. M. Ibrahim Memon learned counsel for the petitioner contended that allegations contained in the complaint Annexure 'E' even if true, would not be sufficient to justify proceedings under section 14 of the Act, which deals with persons who frequently indulge in such acts. He contended that clauses (xii) & (xiv) of section 14 of the Act were not at all applicable in the instant case. Mr. Ibrahim Memon further contended that respondent 1 (Tribunal) acted illegally in issuing non-bailable warrant without recording reasons therefor, as is required under section 5 of the Act.
10. ' In order to appreciate the first contention raised by Mr. M. Ibrahim Memon it would be advantageous to reproduce here under clauses (xii) and (xiv) of section 14 of the Act-
(xii) frequently promotes feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes or sects of citizens; or
(xii) frequently resorts to stoning or setting fire to public or private vehicles or causing damage to public or private property.
11. ' The perusal of both these clauses of section 14 would show that if the Tribunal is satisfied as a result of enquiry held under the Act that the person complained against frequently promotes feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes or sects of citizens or frequently resorts to stoning or setting fire to public or private vehicles or causing damage to public or private property, it shall require him to furnish bond with one or more sureties for such period not exceeding three years and for such amount as may be specified to be of good behavior.
12. ' Most of the clauses of section 14 of the Act employ words like "frequents", "frequently", "habit", "habitually" or words of similar import. In order that clauses (xii) & (xiv) of section 14 of the Act could be made applicable, it is to be shown that the person complained against frequently indulged in any of the acts mentioned in these two clauses. Frequenting means being sufficiently long in a place to effect object aimed at. Frequenter is one who comes to a place often and frequency would mean the numbers of times something occurred within a stated period. To frequent a gaming-house is to make a habit of going there. It is therefore, cigar to is that the Legislature has in its wisdom used the word frequently in these two clauses so as to exclude an action under the Act in respect of any solitary unlawful or illegal Act which has prudently been left to be dealt with under the ordinary law. A bare reading of the above provisions clearly suggests that it is not a single act or even two or more acts committed in the course of the same transaction which could form the basis of any proceedings under the Act. Looking to this obvious meaning and import of the word frequently used in clauses (xii) and (xiv) of the Act which are sought to be made applicable to the case of the detenu, it is difficult for u to hold that the detenu frequently indulged in the acts enumerated in the two clauses referred to hereinabove, if it was accepted that the detenu did actually on 28th and 29th of November, 1975 raise slogans with a view to A create hatred between different classes of the citizens and stoned public vehicles, as alleged.
13. ' Consequently we are of the view that clauses (xii) and (xiv) of section 14 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case.
14. ' There appears to us to be another violation of the provisions of the Act. Section 5 of the Act requires that before issuing warrant against the person reported, the Tribunal shall record the substance of the report or information upon which the warrant is being issued. Such substance must relate to the offence or act which it is proposed to prevent through the issuance of the warrant. In the instant case there is nothing on record to indicate that the learned Tribunal recorded the substance of the report on information by the Police in his order directing the issue of warrant. The order thus could not be considered to be in compliance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act.
15. ' In view of the foregoing reasons we hold that the proceedings taken against the detenu under the Act are without lawful authority and consequently of no legal effect. We accordingly quash the proceedings pending against the detent under the Act.