1. ' By this Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The applicant Mehboob Ali Chandio seeks quashment of proceedings pending against him under section 14/4, Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal, Badin.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the S.H.O., Kadhan Police Station submitted report under section 14/4, Sindh Crimes Control Act, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal, Badin on 3-2-1997. The complaint/report reads as under:-- "It is submitted that Mehboob Ali son of Soomar by caste Chandio, resident of village Soomar Chandio, Taluka Badin is a notorious Badmash and criminal type person. He has no other ostensible means of living except on robbery, burglary, forcible Zina, committing theft and disposing of stolen property on receiving of Bhung. The criminal type persons of distant places used to visit him, he harbours them, commits crimes duly armed and gets crimes committed. Due to his awe and terror in the public, no person comes to police station and is prepared to lodge the report. His remaining at large is hazardous to the public. As such, the abovenamed accused is referred to under section 14/4, Sindh Crimes Control Act.
3. ' The Honourable Court may be pleased to proceed and issue warrant against him and inform the final decision."
4. ' The applicant has challenged the above proceedings in this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Syed Madad Ali Shah, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Bahadur Ali Baloach, learned Counsel for the State.
6. ' It is contended by Mr. Syed Madad Ali Shah, learned Counsel for the applicant, that the allegations contained in the report are vague, bald and of sweeping nature, which have no nexus with the provisions contained in section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the report submitted by the S.H.O. Does not contain the details of acts allegedly committed by the applicant nor time and place of commission of such acts. He further argues that merely the applicant's being tried in certain cases for substantive offences under Pakistan Penal Code or under some other laws, reports of which have not been produced before the Tribunal, it will not justify initiation of proceedings against the applicant under Sindh Crimes Control Act. The learned counsel has further stressed that previously also the S.H.O. Badin police station had submitted report against the applicant on 14-5-1992 containing almost similar allegations and such proceedings were quashed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,555 of 1992.
7. The learned Counsel has placed the certified true copy of Judgment of this Court dated 26-01-1993 on the record.
8. ' The learned counsel has also argued that the applicant is not a previous convict and he has either been acquitted in respect of the cases shown in the report or the cases are pending trial against him. Lastly he submits that ther; is no independent witness against the applicant and all the witnesses are the police officials.
9. ' In support of his arguments the learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions reported in PLD 1978 Kar. Page 305 and also at page 630, 1986 PCr.LJ page 30, 1997 PCr.LJ pages 771, 803, 190 and 1200.
10. ' The learned counsel for the State in view of the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant has conceded to the quashment of proceedings.
11. ' I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I have gone through the contents of report, judgment of this Court dated 26-1-1993 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,555 of 1992 and also perused the case law cited by Mr. Syed Madad Ali Shah, learned Counsel for the applicant.
12. A bare perusal of the report submitted by the S.H.O. Kandhan Police Station, referred to above, shows that the allegations made against the applicant are vague, bald, and of sweeping nature and have no nexus with any of the provisions contained in section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The Crime No,89 of 1989 pertains to murder case while Crime No,10 of 1990 pertains to section 307, P.P.C. Which have no nexus with any of the clauses contained in section 14 of the said Act.
13. Similarly Crime No,7 of 1997 alleged to be case against the applicant pertaining to section 11/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, has also no nexus with the provisions of section 14 of the said Act. It is alleged in the report at Serial No,5 that applicant was previously involved in Crime No,7 of 1992 pertaining to section 14/4 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, the proceedings of which had already been quashed by this Court vide judgment, dated 26-01-1993 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,555 of 1992. The police despite quashment of proceedings has again initiated almost the similar proceedings containing the same allegations as made earlier in the year 1992. Besides the complaint contains no details of acts allegedly committed by the applicant nor time and place of commission of such acts. As such, there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The witnesses cited in the report are all police officials and not a single independent or private witness has been cited by the S.H.O. Concerned in the report.
14. ' In the case of Aftab Alam alias Matoo v. Tribunal and A.0 and S.D.M. (Central), reported in PLD 1978 Kar. 305 a D.B. Of this Court, held that first information report containing no details of acts committed by petitioner nor time and place of commission of such acts but merely stating petitioner's being tried in certain cases for substantive offences under Penal Code and reports in respect of such offences, not produced before Court, it was difficult to hold petitioner's case fall within any clause of section of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, and proceedings in the reported case were quashed by this Court.
15. ' In yet another case Hussain Bux v. District Magistrate Larkana reported in PLD 1978 Kar. Page 630 a D.B of this Court, quashed the proceedings as none of the acts contained in the report against the petitioner were falling within the clause of (vi) of section 14 nor such acts having any nexus with the allegations made against the petitioner.
16. ' In the case of Amir Ali and 22 others v. The State reported in 1986 PCr.LJ page 30, His Lordship Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, J. Quashed the proceedings in number of cases holding that against accused merely vague allegations such as a bad character or a thief or a scoundrel or a Badmash would not be sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under the Act. It was further held that the allegations against accused were of general and vague in nature and details of acts and time or place of occurrence were not mentioned in any such reports made against the accused, as such proceedings were liable to be quashed against such an accused person.
17. ' In the case of Amir-uz-Zaman alias Amiro v. The State and another, reported in 1997 PCr.LJ page 1200, proceedings were quashed by this Couri on the ground that merely listing of some cases in the police report, cannot be a substitute for the details of information required to be furnished under section (vi) of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975.
18. ' In yet another recent case of Haji Muhammad Ayub v. The State, reported in 1997 PCr.LJ 771, this Court quashed the proceedings under Sindh Crimes Control Act by holding that taking of cognizance on the basis of a police report containing general and vague allegations and issuing non bailable warrants by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and in complete violation of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975.
19. ' In the case of Riaz Ahmed v. The 'State, reported in 1997 PCr.LJ page 803, this Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the police report did not show that the petitioner had been convicted in any of the four cases registered against him rather than he had been acquitted in one case and the proceedings initiated against him under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. About four years back had ended and that police report did not show the petitioner as a habitual criminal.
20. ' In the case of Sikandar Ali v. The State reported in 1997 PCr.LJ page 190, this Court quashed the proceedings under Sindh Crimes Control, Act holding that the police report itself was vague having mentioned no specific instances in it and no private person had been shown against the petitioner and that prosecution has not alleged any previous conviction against the petitioner.
21. ' In the case of Buxial Shah v. The State, reported in 1997 PCr.LJ page 921, this Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that complaint has to be exhaustive and the complaint before the tribunal should contain all material praticulars with full details.
22. ' Considering the entire material on the record, contents of the report and particularly judgment of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,555 of 1992, I am of the view that the report filed by the S.H.O. Concerned against the applicant was not bonafide act and there was no justification for initiation of proceedings against the applicant. There is also non compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in sections 4, 5 and 6 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. In view of the above discussion and considering the case law, referred to above, I am of the view, that proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14/4 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed.
23. ' I therefore, allow Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,92 of 1997 and quash the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14/4 of the Sindh Crimes Control, Act, 1975 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal, Badin.
24. ' By the short order dated 19-12-1997, I had quashed the proceedings. The above are the reasons of my short order.