1. ' This is a criminal miscellaneous application moved under section 561-A of Cr.P.C. With a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated under section 14 of Sindh Crime Control Act 1975 in a Case No,271 of 1996 (State v. Mst. Shamim Akhter) pending before the Tribunal/SDM Eidgah Police Station Napier, Karachi-South.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that S.H.O. Police Station Napier made a report under section 5 of Sindh Crime Control Act to the S.D.M. Eidgah, Karachi-South, who as per order dated 21-11-1996 ordered issuance of the ,ailable warrants in the sum of Rs,20,000 against the applicant, which order of S.D.M. Has been challenged through this criminal miscellaneous application.
3. ' Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case.
4. ' Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that there existed no fresh material before the learned S.D.M., Eidgah, Karachi-South, to hold that applicant's remaining at large was hazardous to general public and the learned S.D.M. Did not apply his mind before issuing bailable warrants against the applicant as there was no reason for proceeding against the applicant under the said provision of law considering that in the previous proceedings on the basis of same material, the applicant was discharged by S.D.M., Eidgah, Karachi-South, on 24th November, 1993. He further contended that there existed dispute between the applicant and her neighbour namely Mst.
5. Irashad Begum over the purchase of building who has got influence over the police and at whose instance, applicant has been implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel further contends that the initiation of these proceedings amounted to double jeopardy as such would be violative of section 403.Of Cr.P.C. And Article 13 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He has placed reliance upon (i) Sherin Bacha and others v. Namoos Iqbal and three others (PLD 1993 SC 247) wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court held that same accused cannot be retried for the same offence on the plea of putrefies acquit, (ii) Malik Anjum Farooq Paracha v. Manzoor-Ul-Haq Chohan and four others (1993 PCr.LJ 1056) wherein the leared Judge in Chambers has observed that proceedings on the basis of second F.I.R which was legally not warranted could not be allowed to continue and continuance of such proceedings was a case of double jeopardy hence would amount to abuse of process of law and would be violative of section 403 of Cr.P.C. And Article 13 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, (iii) Ismail A Rehman v. Muhammad Sadiq and three others (PLD 1990 Karachi 286 D.B.) at page 300 their Lordships have observed:- "So far as the language of Article 13 is concerned, the words no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once' are employed. Courts may take recourse to the legislative history as well as to the intention of the legislature but bearing always in mind that the intention is best expressed in the words used. In finding out the legislature's intent, the Courts cannot speculate and trespass into the field of legislation. Resort may be had, and in fact Courts are in some cases bound to do so, to ascertain the mischief left unprovoked for in the old law and sought to be remedied by the new statute. That course is adopted to find out the intention of the legislature in the statutes penned obscurely, but principally a law must be interpreted by the words of the statute itself. The words must be read in their ordinary sense, though they may be modified to avoid an absurdity or incongruity. Law reports abound with decisions holding that the Courts can go no further and we propose to adhere to that well-recognized rule."
(iv) Inayat v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 1115) wherein the learned Judge in Chambers observed that police report should satisfy the provision of section 6 of Sindh Crime Control Act and should state specific allegation giving details of time and place of acts allegedly done by the accused and substance of accusations of the proceedings must be stated in the report of which notice be given to the accused, in absence of compliance of same issuance of warrants of arrest would be disregard of the provisions of proviso to section 5 of Sindh Crime Control Act, 1975. Vague allegations giving no details of time and place would not itself be sufficient to proceed against the accused under section 5 of Sindh Crime Control Act, 1975 and (V) Haji Ali Muhammad Solangi v.
6. Tribunal/S.D.M., Nazimabad, Karachi and another (PLD 1980 Karachi 267) wherein their Lordships observed that mere list of cases, in which petitioner was challaned, cannot be a substitute for statement of particulars to be given under section 5 and taking of cognizance of such report would not be proper.
7. ' Learned counsel for the State has contended that there are 35 cases against the applicant and out of said cases in some of them, the applicant has been convicted for the offence under section 294, P.P.0 consequently the action initiated against the applicant was legal and proper cannot be quashed in this criminal miscellaneous application.
8. ' I do not find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the state but find substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant. The list of cases filed with the instant case by the police mentioned that there were 35 cases against the applicant on 3-10-1995 and in some of the cases the applicant was convicted for the offence under section 294, P.P.C. However, action under the similar provisions of section 14 of Sindh Crime Control Act was initiated in A Case No,148 of 1993 (State v. Mst. Shamim @ Bharjai) wherein same number of list of cases was made basis for the proceedings but the learned S.D.M. As per order dated 24th November, 1993 discharged the applicant. The relevant portion of his observations runs:- ' "I have very carefully perused the record of previous proceedings. Arguments of learned Defence Counsel, Report of Learned A.A. And the observations of superior Courts and I have come to conclusion that the S.H.O. While submitting his complaint has concealed certain facts from the court which act of prosecution is contemptuous and is illegal.
9. ' It is settled law that a person cannot be prosecuted twice on the same facts and figures. Further, the report submitted by Police/prosecution is not in accordance with law and the mandatory provisions of Sindh Crime Control Act and above all the respondent carrys no conviction which is essential for initiating fresh proceedings. I fully agree with the material arguments of Learned Defence Counsel and authorities relied upon.
10. ' In my humble opinion the proceeding under section 14 of Sindh Crime Control Act are not justified and on the other hand it shall be a miscarriage of justice if further lingered on, therefore, I hereby discharge the respondent under section 15 of Sindh Cotrol Act and discharge the sureties."
11. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has also produced photo copy of order passed in Sessions Case No,766 of 1996 in a case registered under section 13/14/18 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
12. Ordinance 1979 F.I.R No,129 of 1996 of Police Station Napier Karachi wherein the applicant was acquitted under section 265-K of Cr.P.C. On 3-5-1997 by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi- South. He has also produced photostat copy of judgment passed in Sessions Case No,154 of 1995 in a case registered under sections 13, 14 and 18 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, No,22 of 1995 of Police Station Napier wherein also the applicant alongwith others were acquitted under section 265-K of Cr.P.C. On 7th May, 1995 by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South.
13. ' There was no fresh material which could furnish fresh ground to the Tribunal/S.D.M. Eidgah Karachi-South for taking cognizance under the said provisions of Sindh Crime Control Act against the applicant. It is also settled law that no one could be vexed twice for the same offence as it would be violative of section 403 of Cr.P.C. And Article 13 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The action taken is unwarranted under the law, consequently the proceedings in respect of Case No,271 of 1996 (State v. Shamim) pending before the Tribunal/S.D.M. Eidgah Karachi under section 14 of Sindh Crime Control Act, 1975 are quashed, consequently this criminal miscellaneous application is allowed.