' The applicant Maroo has approached this Court for abashment of the proceedings of the case instituted on the complaint of S. H.
0., Mirpur Bathoro against him under section 110, Cr. P. C. Now pending in the Court of the learned S. D. M., Sujawal, District Thatta.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the S. H.
0., Mirpur Bathoro, in his complaint has alleged that the applicant is a well-known thief, badmash and Patharidar and a dangerous type of a person. There are many complaints against him to the effect that he carries with himself deadly weapons day and night, and causes harassment to the poor people and commits thefts. Thus the record against the applicant was maintained with the following instances :
(a) On 4-2-1978, one Ghulam Hussain gave statement before the police that about 1 k months ago, his cow was stolen, during day time, from the jungle and footprints were taken, which led to the Village of the applicant. The applicant was contacted in a Hotel, where he was sitting, with his friends, Hussain and Haji. They refused to give information about the theft of the cow; but ultimately demanded Rs, 500 as Bhung. The amount was finally settled to Rs, 300 which was paid to the applicant by Ghulam Hussain in presence of Loung Solangi. The applicant in spite of receiving the Bhung money, did not return the cow.
(b) On the same date (4-2-1978) Bashoo also gave a statement before the Police that about three months back, his bullock was stolen. He came to know that the applicant was responsible for it. He approached the applicant, who returned the bullock on payment of Rs, 800 as Bhung. In addition to the above following three instances were cited in the Police complaint.
(i) A case under section 379/411, P. P. C. Was challaned in the Court, where it is pending disposal.
(it) A case under section 379/411, P. P. C.; in which the applicant was neither named as an accused, nor the case against him was challaned, but the police had shown him as a suspect.
(iii) Proceedings under M. L.
0. 12 against the applicant.
3. On the basis of these allegations the learned S. D. M., Sujawal was pleased to pass the order under section 112, Cr. P. C. Reproducing the above instances.
4. Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh, the learned counsel for the applicant, has argued that the first requirement for proceedings under section 110, Cr. P. C. Is that the applicant should be strictly proved to have been, by habit, a receiver of the stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen. He has argued that there is nothing on the record to show that the applicant, by habit is a notorious thief, or is a Patharidar. He has further submitted that from the complaint of the S. H.
0. Police, there is no indication that there were general complaints of thefts against the applicant.
There is not a word in the evidence to show that the applicant was carrying deadly weapons, while committing the offences, as is alleged in the order passed under section 112, Cr. 13, C. Nor there is any allegation that applicant himself had committed any theft of the cow, belonging to Ghulam Hussain or the theft of a bullock of Bachool Kandhra. He has urged that there is only a word of Ghulam Hussain and Bachoo in respect of Bhung money, which evidence is collected by the S. H.
0., who is stated to be hostile to the applicant.
5. It is further argued that the case under section 379/411, P. P. C. Is pending in the Court of law and is sub judice. The applicant has reason to believe that in this case he would be acquitted.
6. Whereas there is no case at all under section 379/411, P. P, C. Against the applicant. Mere suspicion has been expressed by the Police due to police hostility towards the applicant. He has finally argued that the, proceedings under M. L.
0. 12 against the applicant show that he has been victimised for political considerations.
7. The learned Assistant A.-G. Mr. Mazharul Haq has supported the application and has argued, that the proceedings against the applicant are an abuse of the process of the Court and should be quashed.
8. I have gone through the complaint filed by the Police, as well as the order passed by the learned S. D. M., Sujawal. In order to sustain a charge under section 110, Cr. P. C. The person proceeded against, must be proved to be by habit a thief, receiver of the stolen property etc. 'Habit' has been held, repeatedly in several cases of this Court, to imply tendency, resulting from repetition of the same act, which connotes depravity of character, as evidenced by frequent repetition or commission of offences of thefts, receiving of stolen property etc. There must be proof of persistence on the part of the accused to corral the offences. Habit must be proved by aggregate instances and not on the basis of complicity in an isolated instance of theft or suspicion in respect of another instance. In short, there should be, necessarily, evidence stowing large number of definite instances of thefts etc. In which the applicant has previously been adjudged as guilty. We have in our country the Police force, which in the Muffasil, is very powerful. The action& of the Police are often found, to be in excess of their authority. The citizens are therefore protected only by law.
The victimization of citizens is so rampant that the Courts of Law require strict proof in respect of the matters under section 110, Cr. P. C. To avoid political or otherwise victimization of innocent person.
9. It is not denied, that in cases under section 110, Cr. P. C. Evidence of general repute can be adduced. The general reputation is what is thought of a person by others. It is a collective opinion of those persons in whose midst the accused lives. Such a reputation is distinguishable from a mere opinion of a few individuals. In majority of the cases, we find, that the evidence of repute comes only from the Police Officers; whereas, on general reputation of a person, evidence, ordinarily, should come from respectable and independent witnesses of the locality, where the accused lives, amongst his villagers or townsmen whether he is a thief, by habit, a robber or is a dangerous person.
10. In this case, the evidence of receipt of Bhung in the above-cited cases was received by the police on the same day on 4-2-1978 from Ghulam Hussain and Bachoo, and Bhung. In a situation, when the Polic Officers become hostile to a person such evidence is not difficult to procure. The evidence in respect of Bhung in this case, appears to have been received from different persons; but on one and the same date. Such evidence doe not seem to be natural.
11. I further find that there is only one case of Crime No, 57/7 which has been challaned and is still pending disposal in the Court.
12. From the above' discussions, I am satisfied, that the evidence of general repute, as is alleged, is such that it does not constitute a habit as is contemplated by section 110, Cr. P. C. It would, therefore, not b proper to allow the proceedings against the applicant to continue. On the basis of the material on the record, the learned Assistant A.-G. Has also frankly supported the application being an abuse of the process of the Court, which is accordingly allowed, and the proceedings against the applicant, pending in the Court of the learned S. D. M. Sujawal, are hereby quashed. Bail Bonds furnished by the applicant are discharged.