1. ' On 30-7-1996 Malik Abu Zar, S.H.O. Police Station Kalakot, Karachi filed a report against applicant Muhammad Yousaf Bengali before the S.D.M. City and Tribunal, Karachi South for taking action against the applicant under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. It was urged that the applicant is engaged in criminal activities and he was previously arrested in 13 cases mentioned in his report. He was in custody but after release from Jail, he again started his nefarious activities. He being enlarged without security, it will be hazardous to the community.
2. 'On the above said report and after examining said Malik Abu Zar, S.H.O., the Tribunal took cognizance against the applicant and issued warrant of arrest against him.
3. ' The applicant was produced before the said S.D.M./Tribunal on the next day i,e, 31-7-1996 on boilable warrant but remanded to custody as he failed to furnish solvent surety. The applicant was, however, ordered to be produced on 12-8-1996. On such date, the applicant could not be produced. In these circumstances, the applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon Ahmad Hayat and others v. The State 1983 SCM R 350, Abdul Hakeem and another v. Been stated that the applicant has been convicted in Crime No,285 of 1981 of Police Station Kalakot and Crime No,264 of 1984 of Police Station Chakiwaia. He further contended that the statement made in the report regarding conviction of the applicant is false and that the applicant was proceeded under the provisions of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 on the basis of the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Karachi South that the applicant is a habitual notorious narcotic dealer/padler and he has no other means of income except by selling the heroin. Instances of his criminal activities i,e, involvement in five cases including above referred cases. The proceeding taken under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 against the applicant was subject of the C.P. No,D-78 of 1989. A copy of the judgment of above said petition has been brought on record and Sardar M.
5. Ishaq has referred para.2 of the judgment wherein it was observed that in the supporting grounds of the impugned order five old criminal cases pertaining to 1981 to 1986 have been mentioned, in all of which the detent was acquitted. The above statement has not been controverted by the respondent. Consequently, the proceedings were declared to be without lawful authority. He further contended that the applicant was again subjected to the proceedings under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, which were again challenged in C.P. No,D-397 of 1990 and the proceedings were declared as illegal and without jurisdiction and the applicant was set at liberty.
6. Referring the judgment in the abovesaid petition the learned counsel for the applicant contended that 8 cases were the basis of the proceedings. Out of 8 cases, five cases were the subject of earlier petition viz C.P. 78 of 1989. On that ground, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that a false statement has been made that the applicant has been convicted in above cases. It was further urged by him that the proceedings were initiated on the report of S.H.O. Police Station Kalakot, which were in complete disregard of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act and consequently, the tribunal has acted without jurisdiction and the order passed under section 8(3)(b) of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 was based on the statement of Abu Zar, who was examined on the same day, which was vague.
7. ' The cognizance against the applicant was taken on 31-7-1996, which is evident from the following order of even date:- "The P.I. Present on behalf of the State. S.H.O. Kalakot personally appeared before this Court and submitted the report under section 14, Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 against the accused namely Muhammad Yousaf alias Bengali son of Noor Muhammad. Record the statement of S.H.O. Order passed under section 5, Sindh Crimes Control Act. Register the case. Issue boilable warrants against accused."
8. "31-7-1996 Boilable warrants of accused Muhammad Yousaf alias Bengali served and produced in police custody. Accused failed to furnish the solvent surety and remanded to judicial custody for want of surety."
9. ' It has been contended that no specific instances were given. The allegations were vague, without date and time. The proceedings taken by the learned Tribunal were not in the line with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of sections 5, 6 and 8(3) of Sindh Crimes Control Act.
10. Copy of the report was not supplied, as is evident from the diary, dated 31-7-1996.
11. ' Section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act provides delivery of copy of report, every summon or warrant issued under section 5 shall be accompanied by a copy of report and such report shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summon or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under the same; provided that the report shall briefly state (i) the acts with which the person complained against is charged; (ii) the details of time and place of such acts; and (iii) general repute of person complaint or such other allegation made against him.
12. The report filed by S.H.O. Police Station Kalakot did not state (i) the act with which the applicant is charged, (ii) the details of time and place of such acts and (iii) general repute of the applicant or any other allegation against him.
13. ' In the case of Jan Muhammad v. The State PLD 1981 Kar. 682 the order of the Tribunal based on such report was found to be without jurisdiction. The same question was also examined by Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J. (as he then was) in the case of Inayat v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1115 and was answered as follows:-- "Like proviso to section 5, the proviso to section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 was not really a proviso in the accepted sense, but an independent legislative provision laying down the contents of the report to be served upon the person proceeded against. On the face of it the report filed by S.H.O. Sujawal Police Station. Against the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The S.H.O. Sujawal Police Station, has tried to bring the case of the applicant within the mischief of clauses (xix), (xx) and (xxxi) of section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, but only vague allegations have been made with no details of time and place of such acts, as required under section 6. The report which is again the basis of proceedings under section 8 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 is intended to give sufficient notice to the person against whom the proceedings are drawn, of the accusation made against him. Therefore, the report must set forth the substance of accusation alleged against the person proceeded with. If this is not done, the person proceeded against cannot know till he comes to Tribunal precisely what he is charged with and as no charge is drawn up in such proceedings, he may not know till the final order is passed, what his alleged fault is."
14. Thus, the proceedings drawn against the applicant are liable to be quashed on this score alone.
15. ' Section 8(3)(b) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, whereunder the order, dated 31-7-1996 was passed provides as under:-- "8. Proceedings.--- (1) When the person complained against appears or is brought before the Tribunal in compliance with, or in execution of, a summon or warrant, issued under section 5, the Tribunal shall proceed to inquire into the trying of the report upon which action has been taken and to take evidence as may appear necessary.
(2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
(3) Pending the completion of the inquiry under the section if the Tribunal considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of the commission of the act complained against, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing--
(a) direct the person complained against to execute a bond, with or without sureties for maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or in default of execution until the inquiry is concluded; or
(b) instead of taking bond for appearance of such person, order his detention for such period as may be specified or till the conclusion of the inquiry, provided that such detention shall not exceed two months unless his case has been referred to the Commissioner and the latter has, for reasons to be recorded in writing, agreed to such detention for a further period not exceeding four months."
16. Reading the order, dated 31-7-1996 together with section 8 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, reproduced above, it is apparent that the order under subsection (3)(b) can be passed only after the person complained against appears or is brought before the Tribunal in compliance with, or in execution of summon or warrant issued under section 5.
17. ' Faced with the above situation, learned State Counsel has frankly conceded and has not supported the proceedings taken by the learned Tribunal against the applicant.
18. As a result of the above discussion, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed under section 561- A, Cr.P.C. Is allowed and the proceedings) pending against the applicant under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 before the S.D.M. City/Tribunal, Karachi South are quashed.
19. ' It may be observed that the above order is passed purely on technical grounds. There is, therefore, no bar for drawing fresh proceedings against the applicant keeping in view the above legal requirements. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.