Applicant Zulfiqar A.I Jakhro has been proceeded against by S.H.O. Ratodero under the provisions of section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act The report of the S.H.O. Is dated 2-4-1996 and it contains that the applicant Zulfiqar A.I Jakhro who lived within the jurisdiction of S.H.O. Ratodero was a criminal and notorious criminals visited him. It was also mentioned in the report that applicant Zulfiqar A.I-helped the criminals in the kidnaping of the innocent persons and indulged in providing drugs to children. He also got stolen property returned on payment on ransom and that he generally did not show respect to the respectable persons. It is further stated in the report against him that no person amongst the public was ready to give evidence against him and therefore his remaining outside the jail was hazardous to the public.
2. In support of the allegations of this report a list of witnesses was given which comprised the name of S.H.O. Himself in addition to the Assistant Sub---Inspector and Head Constable of the same Police Station. On receiving such report the Tribunal and S.D.M., Ratodero immediately ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the applicant without resorting to any inquiry nor perused any record as none was produced. The non-bailable warrants were issued on the very same day. It appears that S.H.O., Ratodero executed the non---bailable warrants against the applicant in sub jail Ratodero on the same day as he was already in custody in some other case and a report of this fact was produced before the S.D.M. The S.D.M. Ordered for the production of the applicant on 16-4-1996. On 16-4-1996 the applicant was produced in custody and the learned Tribunal and S.D.M. Passed an order under section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, and again remanded the applicant to custody in these proceedings also. In the meanwhile the applicant approached this Court with this Criminal Miscellaneous Application with a prayer that the proceedings against him may be quashed under the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 15-4-1996, and was actually released on bail on 21-4-1996. The record and proceedings of the Tribunal and S.D.M. Have been called and the same have been perused.
3. Learned counsel for applicant in support of his prayer for quashment has argued that not only the report of the S.H.O. Is against the spirit of the provisions of the Sindh Crimes Control Act but even the learned Magistrate and Tribunal has not cared to follow the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act as interpreted by this Court in several previous cases which decisions are reported in law journals. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of State has not supported the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and S.D.M. And also conceded that the material provided before the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal, Ratodero was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore cognizance has been taken illegally by the S.D.M. And Tribunal, and that orders passed by the S.D.M. In remanding the applicant to custody amounted to flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the record of the case.
4. Not a single instance of a crime committed by the applicant has been mentioned in the police report with the particulars relating to its date, time and place. This requirement of law is very well- known as since long such interpretation of law has been made by this Court in various cases and it has been held that it is the requirement of law that persons proceeded against should be shown to be habitual criminals or repeaters of crimes, and therefore dangerous and desperate. In order to show above state of the criminals, it is necessary to place the record against them before the Tribunal which should comprise the details of the cases in which they are previously involved or convicted, so that the Tribunal and S.D.M. After going through such record may form an opinion that it is necessary to proceed against such criminals under the provisions of this Act.
5. The report against the applicant neither shows that the applicant was ever involved in any crime prior to making the report against him nor he was a previous convict, no details of the complaints made by any person against him are given. Although in the report police has mentioned that no person was ready to come forward to give evidence or make any complaint against the applicant, it denotes that such persons must be within the knowledge of the police. If the police does know about them the police at least must know their names and addresses and could conveniently state in the report that such and such person was afraid of the applicant and was so afraid that he was not coming forward to depose out of fear. The police could give the details of the atrocities committed by the applicants against those who are afraid of the applicants. No such mention appears in this report. Besides, it is very easy for the police to make mechanical and routine reports without supporting the same by any sort of evidence except the word of the police officials. No doubt police officials could be witnesses in such proceedings and could be believed or disbelieved, but the circumstances should suggest that the report against the applicant was genuine and not fanciful or whimsical. It is impossible to dawn upon the police all of sudden, on one day that such and such applicant is so hazardous and dangerous criminal that he should immediately be arrested and put behind the bars. The police report must show as to since how long they have been receiving the complaints and the details of such complaints should form part of the report against such criminals. All such details are lacking in this report. Therefore the report of the police can be conveniently called a mechanical, routine, fanciful and whimsical report against the applicant in this case. The learned S.D.M, and Tribunal is supposed to be aware of the interpretation and import of the provisions of the law under which the proceedings are produced before him. In the cases under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, this Court has many a time laid down the dictum that mere mention in the police report that the accused had a reputation of being notorious and hardened criminal without specifying the instances of his involvement in any incident, or acting as a desperate and, dangerous man was not sufficient to bring his case within the purview of section 14 of the Act.
6. In the case of Haji Jam v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 1) Justice Akhtar A.I G. Kazi (as he then was) has exactly used the above-described words while interpreting the provisions of section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act. Similarly in the case of A.I Bux v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 4) Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo (as he then was) has held as under:--- "Police report contains allegations against the applicant which are vague and short of particulars.
The acts allegedly committed by the applicant which can justify branding him as 'dangerous' have not been specified. The applicant is shown to be accused in one criminal case besides being respondent in proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Names of the criminals being given shelter by the applicant, have not been given. Applicant is not a convict in any case. The only witness cited against him is an Inspector of Police. "
7. I venture to quote further paragraph from the judgment delivered by Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo (as he then was) in the case of A.I Bux v. The State, as it appears to be appropriate for the guidance of the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal "No private person is cited as a witness against the applicant. The Tribunal and S.D.M. Has committed great irregularities. He passed order under section 8(3) of the Act only on the basis of the evidence of the S.H.O. In the said order the applicant was not ordered to furnish sureties but was directed to execute a bond. Yet the applicant was remanded to custody on the ground that -- -he is not able to furnish the request'. The Tribunal appears to have signed the order blindly without caring to go through them. This reflects badly on efficiency of the Tribunal and S.D.M. He seems to be an unscrupulous person and unfit to exercise the powers of the Magistrate muchless of the S.D.M."
8. No separate order under the provisions of section 8(3) of the Act has been passed against the applicant, whereas on the very first day when the report was produced before the learned S.D.M.
And Tribunal, order for issuance of non-bailable warrants was passed. At that time there was no record and no evidence of any witness before the Tribunal. Therefore, taking of cognizance by the Magistrate issuing the non-bailable warrants on the very day amounted to a mechanical act without applying judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and also without caring to know the import of the provisions of law in that respect. The other cases decided by this Court in conformity of the above interpretation are:
(1) Muhammad A.I Phul v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1984).
(2) Muhammad Nasim Qureshi v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 1249).
9. Considering the above facts I feel no hesitation in holding that neither the S.H.O. Has acted legally in furnishing the report under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act against the applicant, nor the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal has acted legally in taking cognizance of the case and passing the orders of issuing the non-bailable warrants against the applicant and orders under section 5 of the Act. The proceedings if allowed to remain on the record of the S.D.M. And Tribunal will amount to abuse of process of Court. Under these circumstances I order that the proceedings are hereby quashed.