' This is a revision application under section 22 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 against the order of Commissioner, Hyderabad Division dated 22-6-1976 whereby be tailed to exercise the jurisdiction under section 22 (1) of the Act on the ground that he had already extended the period of detention of the petitioner originally under order of S. D. M. & Tribunal, Hyderabad for a further period of 4 months.
2. The facts leading to the proceedings in brief are that on 23-3-1976, S. H. O., Bald Shah Karim lodged a report before S. D. M., Hyderabad under section 4 of the Sind Crimes Control Act for action against the petitioner who was reported to be a habitual offender being in the habit of selling darns, smuggling charm, fighting with general public and extorting goonda tax from the people.
The learned S. D. M. Ordered issue of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and on the petitioner being produced before him he examined S. H.
0., Mangaher Rano of Balri Shah Karim and passed further order under section 8(3) (b) of the Act detaining the petitioner pending the enquiry for a period of 2 months. A revision was then preferred under section 22 (1) of the Act to Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, but the learned Commissioner was under the impression that having extended the period of detention for a further period of 4 months he had no longer jurisdiction to revise the order of detention originally passed by the S. D.
M. The petitioner accordingly preferred this second revision application before the High Court.
3. Mr. Muhammad All Shaikh has argued that the learned S. D. M. Could not have taken cognizance under section 4 of the Act on the vague report of the S. H. O. Which lacked in details of time and place required to be mentioned under section 6(2) of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. Section 6(2) of the said Act provides that every summons or warrant issued under section 5 shall be accompanied by a copy of the report which shall briefly state the acts with which the person complained against is charged, the details of time and place of such acts, and the general repute of the person complained against. It was only when a proper report was filed that cognizance could be taken by the S. D. M. Under section 4. The report filed in the present case by S. B. O. Bald Shah Karim is no doubt vague and contains no particulars or details of the acts or the time and place, when and where those acts took place. Even in his deposition during enquiry the S. H.
0. Has admitted that he received no complaints regarding sale or smuggling of narcotics against the petitioner nor had ho ever trapped him. No cases are mentioned in which the petitioner was ever sent up. The witnesses cited in the report are, apart from the Excise Inspector, the subordinates of the S. H.
0. Under these circumstances the cue against the petitioner is left vague and there is no indication of any acts of smuggling detected at any time or at any place from which the culpability of the petitioner could be ascertained or judged.
4. The learned S. D. M. Had hurriedly passed an order of detentio under section 8(3) (b) of the Act after recording the evidence of the S. B. O.; the examination-in-chief being very brief covering 7 or 8 lines. From 1 evidence it could not be said that immediate measures were necessary to prevent the petitioner from repeating the acts because even the acts werel not mentioned. The order under section 8(3) (b) passed by the S. D. M. w also, therefore, bad.
5.On the basis of the defective order the learned Commissioner extended the period of detention on the expiry of two months for a further period of 4 months and he found that he had become functus officio and could not exercise powers under section 22 (1) of the Act. Section 22 was very wide and the learned Commissioner could have examined the legality, propriety of the orders passed by the S. D. M. Afresh and the mere fact of his extending the period of detention under section 8 did not deprive him of those powers.
6.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state frankly concedes that the orders passed by the S. D. M. And the Commissioner are not valid orders, the initial report of the S. H.
0. Being vague and defective. Under these circumstances the proceedings started against the petitioner hereby quashed.
Revision allowed. {{FOOT NOTE}} 1978 P Cr. L J 454 {{FOOT NOTE}} [Karachi] CrWad Procedure Colo (V of 1096)- - S. 112 read with S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-Order under S. 112 extremely brief and no particulars mentioned, suggesting any danger to breach of peace-No overt act attributed to any of parties -Parties on bail by High Court and since then during last two years no incident of any fight took place-Held t No material on record to justify such action -Pi oceedings quashed, in circumstances.-(Breach of peace-Quashme at of proceedings] (p. 455]A Muhammad All Shaikh and Rand Buz Baloch for Applicant. M. Raman Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing : 12th October 1977.
' These are two connected revision applications directed against orders under section 112, Cr. P. C.
Passed In proceedings started under section 107, Cr. P. C. Against both the parties on the reports of S. H.
0., Tallier Police Station. The S. H. O. Filed these reports against 13 persons from one party and 12 from the opposite-party stating that there were disputes between them over agricultual land and there was likelihood of breach of the peace within the meaning of section 107/151, Cr. P. C. The learned Mukhtiarkar & F. C. M., Badin passed order under section 112, Cr. P. C. On 314-1975 and remanded both the parties to custody.
2. It has been pointed out by Mr. Muhammad All Shaikh that the orders under section 112, Cr. P. C.
Are very brief and no particulars are mentioned suggesting any danger to the breach of the peace.
That there have been no overt acts committed by any of the parties. That the pard were released on bail by the High Court and since then during the last est/ A years no incident of any fight has taken place. That the orders undo section 112, Cr. P. C. Were merely routine orders and the learned Magistra had not applied his mind to the facts of the cue. That in het there no necessity for taking action under section 107, Cr. P. C.
3. Mr. Ramzan Qureshi for the State supports these applications and states that the action was taken against the parties without bringing on record any material to Justify such action. I find that there is no justification for continuing these proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C. Against both these parties. The proceedings and the orders under section 112, Cr. P. C. Are accordingly quashed.