1. ' On 9-6-1997 S.H.O. Thariri Mohbat Police station filed report under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act before the S.D.M., Mehar, against the applicant, S.H.O. Has alleged that Aijaz Ali is (i) man of bad character, (ii) criminals from distant places visit him, he gives them weapons, he commits crimes and encourages them to commit crimes, (iii) he receives stolen property and returns the same on Bhung, (iv) he collects news of the town and pass on to the dacoits,. (v) he teases the women, (vi) he carries deadly and dangerous weapons with him.
2. ' The S.D.M. And Tribunal after receipt of the report from S.H.O. On the very day issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of applicant Aijaz Ali Dahar. On the same day the S.D.M. And Tribunal passed the order under section 8(3)(b) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 and remanded him to custody.
3. ' The report of the S.H.O. Is that Aijaz Ali applicant was involved in report No,8 of 1988 under 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, Crime No,42 of 1988 under section 392/34, P.P.C. Read with section 17 (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance), 1979, report No,13 of 1992 under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, report No,3 of 1997 under section 3(1) of the M.P.O.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Haq Solangi learned counsel contends that the allegations levelled in the report of the S.H.O. Are vague, false and general in nature that no instance with regard to date, time and place of the acts alleged are mentioned in the report as required by section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. That District Magistrate, Dadu on 10-5-1997 exercising his powers under M.P.O. Had ordered the detention of the applicant for thirty days which period was to expire on 9-6-1997. The S.H.O. Police Station Thariri Mohbat in order to deprive the applicant of his liberty filed this false report under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act with mala fide so that he may remain in custody. That Tribunal without applying its judicial mind and without assigning any cogent and plausible reasons and without holding inquiry as required under section 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, took the cognizance of the report which otherwise in any case was not justified, the public witnesses have not been cited by the S.H.O. In support of his report. That the applicant is law abiding citizen and has been made victim of political enmity by the administration at the behest .Of the party in power.
5. That the proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act bearing No,8 of 1988 were quashed by a learned Judge of this Court, while hearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,185 of 1988 on 12-9-1988, the copy of the order has been filed by the learned counsel as Annexure "F". So far the report of Crime No,42 of 1988 under section 392/34, P.P.C. Read with section 17/3, (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance) is concerned, in this very case applicant Aijaz Ali was acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar while deciding Sessions Case No,236 of 1988 being outcome of Crime No,43 of 1988, on 30-4-1997. Copy of the order has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant as Annexure "G". Learned counsel for the applicant has filed order passed by District Magistrate, Dadu under M.P.O. Detaining the applicant for a period of thirty days as Annexure "E" which period has already, expired and so far report No,13 of 1997 under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, learned counsel for the applicant states at the Bar that the applicant has been discharged in the case. Mr. Abdul Haq Solangi refers 1995 PCr.LJ 564, in which it has been held that allegations against the applicant are general and vague in nature. The names of the victims of the theft and criminals visiting the applicant have not been given and the allegations are of routine kind. The particulars required to be given under the proviso below section 6 of the Act has not been given. 1996 PCr.L1 102, wherein rule laid down is that Tribunal is bound to record its reasons for issuing warrants of arrest against the person complained in the police report instead of issuing summons. Further that cognizance was taken by Tribunal on an incomplete and defective police report which is not in conformity with the provisions of section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, is nullity in the eyes of law.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned counsel for A.A.-G. Keeping in view the defective report submitted by S.H.O. Thariri Mohbat, against the applicant states at the Bar that allegations in the report are general and vague, that in report instances with regard to date, time and place of acts alleged are missing and S.H.O. Has not complied with the requirements of section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. Learned counsel for A.A.-G. In view of facts and circumstances stated by the learned counsel for the applicant very rightly and frankly raises no objection to the grant of application.
7. I have gone through the material placed with the case and also perused the authorities referred by Mr. Abdul Haq Solangi learned counsel for the applicant. Admittedly, allegations mentioned in the report by the police against the applicant are vague, false and general in nature, the instances with date, time and place of the acts alleged are dot mentioned in the report. All the allegations are of common and routine nature, the particulars required to be furnished under the proviso below section 6 of the Act have not been given.
8. ' All the witnesses cited in the report are police personnels.
9. ' The S.D.M. Without applying its judicial mind and holding inquiry straightaway issued the non- bailable warrants and remanded the applicant to custody which is in violation of the sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act.
10. ' The cases mentioned in the report are no more pending against the applicant, but a learned Judge of this Court on 12-9-1988 was pleased to quash the proceedings initiated by the police against the accused. The Sessions Case No,236 of 1988 being the outcome of Crime No,42 of 1988, Police Station Tharir Mohbat, which has been shown by the police in its report against the applicant. In this very case, applicant Aijaz Ali was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar on 30-4-1997. Copy of the order has been filed. So far the order of District Magistrate Dadu, passed against the accused under M.P.O., dated 10-5-1997, under which the applicant was remanded to custody for thirty days has since expired. So far the report No,13 of 1997 under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has stated at the Bar that in these proceedings applicant/ accused is no more required which fact is not controverted by the learned counsel for A.A.-G. Keeping in view the acquittal of the accused in all the cases referred by police, it is clear that no case is pending against the applicant/ accused.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is being made victim at the behest of the local people in power, who are inimical to the accused, due to political differences is not without substance and same is getting support from the record produced by him showing therein that practically in all these cases, he has been acquitted and he has not been convicted in any case so far.
12. ' The case-law referred by learned counsel for the applicant is relevant and applicable to the facts of the present application, which I respectfully follow.
13. ' The State Counsel has also raised no objection for the grant of the application.
14. ' Under these circumstances application is granted. Proceedings pending before the S.D.M. And Tribunal under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act against the applicant are hereby quashed.
15. Order accordingly.