1. ' By this common order Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos.113 and 114 of 1999 are being disposed of as common question of law and facts arc involved. Applicants Sulleman Zahrani and Abdullah Zahrani have challenged the issuance of non-bailable warrants against them by learned S.D.M. And Tribunal, Larkana on the basis of report furnished by S.H.O. Police Station Garello under section 14, Sindh Crimes. Control Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act) and have prayed for its quashment.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the report are that applicants are thieves, and usually roam in the night by forming gangs. The criminals from far off places usually visit them with .Whom they commit theft and dispose of theft property and receive the Bhung. They are habitual offenders and usually tease small children and women and because of their terror and fear no one from the surroundings prepared to depose against them. As such their remaining outside the jail would be hazardous to the public peace and tranquility.
3. ' Learned Tribunal on receipt of above report issued non-bailable warrants against the applicants for their arrest. Apprehending their arrest they have filed the abovementioned applications.
4. ' It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Saleem Jessar ' that learned Tribunal has not complied with the provisions of section 5 of the Act and in spite of issuing summons he straightaway issued non- bailable warrants without assigning any reason thereof as such the same are liable to be set aside and quashed. According to him irrespective of the above, no copy of the report has been delivered to the applicants which is mandatory requirements of the section 6 of the Act. He next argued that there are general allegations in the reports and no specific details of commission of offence and the places of the acts and their particulars have been defined as such the mandatory provision of the act had not been complied with and proceedings are liable to be quashed. Krishan v. Tribunal and S.D.M. City, Hyderabad 19980 PCr.LJ 1198, Amir Ali and 22 others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 30 and Nisar v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 102.
5. ' On the other side, learned State Counsel frankly concedes that there is insufficient material placed on record against the applicants to warrant proceedings under section 14 of the Act, as such he has no objection if the same are quashed.
6. Mere vague allegations that applicants are thieves and depend upon Bhung money and associate with other criminals are not at all the sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings against them. Mere pendency of one criminal case under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 would not at all be convincing ground to sustain proceedings against them under section 14 of the Act. Admittedly learned Tribunal has not complied with the mandatory provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act and in spite of issuing summons has issued non-bailable warrants as such the same being without substance merits to be quashed. This Court in the case of Krishan (supra), Amir Ali and 22 others (supra) and Nisar (supra) under the same circumstances of the case in hand had quashed the proceedings terming them to be mala fide. As such for what has been discussed above, both the applications under section 561, Cr.P.C. Are accepted and the proceedings are declared to be illegal and without lawful authority and are quashed. The non- bailable warrants issued against them are also set aside.