ABDUL QADIR HALEPOTA, J.-By this constitutional petition the petitioner Aftab Alain has challenged the proceedings initiated against him under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
2. This petition has arisen under the following circumstances :
3. Shamshad Khan, Station House Officer, Brigade Police Station filed a report under section 14 of the said Act in the Court of S. D. M. And Tribunal Central, Karachi wherein he alleged that the petitioner was a person of bad character. He often committed cognizable offences within the jurisdiction of Brigade Police Station as well as within that of other Police Station. He was a bully and dangerous person and he always created fear and alarm amongst the public by assaulting them on very petty matters. He did not even hesitate to commit murder. A list of five cases which were said to he pending against the petitioner in various Courts was also given in this report and 22 witnesses were cited against the petitioner therein.
4. Upon receipt of the said report the learned Tribunal passed the following order on 23rd November, 1976:- "I have gone through report of the S. H. O. It is a fit case to fall within mischief of clauses shown in the report of the Sind Crimes Control Act. 1975. Tee case be registered against the respondent."
5. On the same day the learned Tribunal passed another order which is as follows: --- "Police report under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act u received. Register the case. Issue N.
B. W., against the respondent for 6-12-1976."
6. The petitioner voluntarily appeared before the Tribunal with his counsel on 14-12-1976. He filed an application for bail on which notice was ordered to the State and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. He was, however. Released on interim bail on 27-12-1976.
7. We hive heard Mr. S. Nasiruddin learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho the then Additional Advocate-General for the State: -
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:
(i) that the report neither stated the acts with which the petitioner was charged nor were the details of time and place of such acts mentioned therein;
(ii) that upon the allegations made in the report, none of tae clauses of section 14 of the said Act were attracted and that, therefore, the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner amounted to abuse of the process of Court.
9. We have perused the First Information Report filed against the petitioner. Niether details of acts not the time and place of such acts with which the petitioner is charged are given in it. All that the rep3rt states is that the petitioner is being tried in certain caws under sections 302/307/324 and 504, P. P. C. On the basis of reports registered against him at Brigade and Kharadar Police Station, Karachi. The question which requires consi--deration, therefore, is that whether the cases in which the detenu is said to have been involved have any nexus with the allegation made against him for bringing him within the scope of the said .Act. All the cases registered against the petitioner are in respect of substantive offences allegedly com--mitted by him. None of these reports were produced before a;. In any case they call for sentence under the respective provisions o1 the Pakistan Penal A Code, if the allegations contained therein are proved against the petitioner. In absence of any details as to the nature, time and place of the acts alleged against the petitioner it is difficult for us to hold that the case of the petitioner falls within any of the clauses of section 14 of the said Act.
10. Then there appears to us to be a clear violation of sections 5 and of the said Act. On the receipt of the report the Tribunal has to issue . Summon requiring the person complained against to appear, or when such a person is in custody a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is to produce him before it, provided of course that when it appears to such Tribunal upon the report of the Police Officer or upon other in--formation (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Tribunal) that there Is reason to apprehend the commission of the acts complained against and that such commission of the act cannot be prevented otherwise then by the immediate arrest of such person, the Tribunal may at any time issue a warrant for his arrest.
Every summons or warrant thus issued shall be accompanied by a copy of the report and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving of executing such summons or warrant to the person served with or arrested under the said Act provided that the report shall briefly state, (i) the acts with which the person complained against Is charged (ii) details of time and place of such acts,
(iii) general reputation of person complained against or other such allegations made against him.
11. In this case, however, we find that the Tribunal did not apply his mind to the facts of the case of the petitioner. No reasons whatsoever were assigned for Issuing non-bailable warrants against him. The Tribunal did not even mention in its order is to which clause of section 14 of the said Act was attracted to the case of the petitioner. Thus the Tribunal did no act legally in taking cognizance of the report, in the absence of any specific material.
12. In view of the foregoing reasons the result is that this petition succeeds and the proceedings pending against the petitioner under section 14 of the said Act are quashed.