1. The applicant is detained under section 14 (iv) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act on the ground that there is complaint against him that he is an active worker of a party and shelters the criminals who stay with him. It is also alleged that he often creates terror at the point of fire-arm and causes strikes in the city, as a result the shops and routine business are closed. It is further stated that none from the public is prepared to give evidence against him because of the terror created by him. The report mentions 13 cases in which the applicant is involved.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is ex-M.P.A. And a respectable person and at least five cases mentioned in the report have been disposed of and the remaining case are pending trial but there is absolutely no evidence with the Police to show that he has ever been convicted in any criminal case. Learned counsel next contended that the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act hereinbelow to be referred to as the Act' have not been complied with and that neither the applicant has been summoned nor copy of report as contemplated under section 6 of the Act, has been supplied to him. Further, the contents of clause
(iv) of section 14 speak of visiting gambling dens and unlicensed places where illicit intoxicants are consumed or houses of prostitutes for immoral purpose. That the allegations contained in the report are extremely different as such there was no foundation for the learned Tribunal to take immediate action and issue warrants. He further relied on Muhammad Hussain v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 191, Suleman and another v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Lakana and another 2000 PCr.LJ 886 and Tanveer Hussain alias Kobra v. The State and 2 others 2000 PCr.LJ 1169, wherein the proceedings were quashed, inter alia, on the grounds that the allegations were vague, compliance of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act was not made and the material particulars were lacking.
3. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio learned Assistant Advocate-General candidly conceded that the report on the basis of which the learned Tribunal has taken action is ex facie effective owing to noncompliance of section 6 of the Act and for want of material particulars.
4. ' I have perused the report dated 20-4-2001 submitted by the police to the S.D.M. City/Tribunal which contains the allegations as stated in the opening paragraph of this order but there is no allegation of the kind provided under clause (iv) of section 14 of the Act which reads as under:-- "14. Security for good behaviour from habitual offender.--If the Tribunal is satisfied, as a result of inquiry held under this Act, that the person complained against---( (i).
5. (ii).
6. (iii).
(iv) frequent gambling dens or unlicensed places where illicit intoxicants are consumed or houses of prostitutes for immoral purposes; or There is no doubt about the fact that the report is flagrantly different from the above stated provision, therefore, patently there was no reason for the Tribunal to take an abrupt action by issuing warrants. There is no denial of the fact that neither summons were issued to the applicant within the meaning of section 5 of the Act nor a report furnished to him contemplated under section 6 of the Act laying down particulars of the acts alleged against him. As rightly pointed by learned A.A.-G., neither time nor date and place of any overt act committed by the applicant is mentioned in this report but the allegations are vague and general in nature. On such sweeping allegations and in absence of material particulars the proceedings were quashed in the cases cited above; the principle laid down therein fully applies to the instant case. Nevertheless, the police has apparently fortified the report with a number of criminal cases against the applicant but the learned counsel was justified in contending that nowhere it has been proved that the applicant has been convicted in any criminal case. On the contrary there are five cases in which either the applicant has been acquitted or the cases have been withdrawn.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances and the legal position discussed above I am convinced that the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act have not been complied with by the Tribunal and there is no justifiable reason to condone the same. The material particulars are also lacking and the report contains general allegations which are wholly different from the provisions of clause (iv) of section 14 of the Act. For these reasons the applicant is allowed and the proceedings are quashed. /proceedings quashed.