This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashing the proceedings under section 110, Cr. P. C. Against the applicant pending in the Court of S. D. M., Naushahro Feroze of District Nawabshah.
2. The facts in brief are that the applicant was arrested by the S. H. O. Naushahro, Feroze Police Station of District Nawabshah on 15-12-1979: He was then produced before the - Sub-Divisional Magistrate with a report under section 110, Cr. P. C. Alleging therein that the applicant is a bad character and lives on commission of thefts, accepts `BHUNG' money and offenders of different places visit him and he with their association commits offences and disposes of property through them. He wanders armed with deadly weapons in company of groups and people are under harassm ent from him. Therefore no one from public comes forward to give evidence against him.
3. The witnesses cited in this report besides the complainant who is the S. H. O. Of the Naushahro Feroze Police Station, were Head Constables Muhammad Uris, Mohammed Ismail and Allah Juryo, Police Constables of the same Police Station. It was further mentioned in the report that the present applicant has been challaned in Crime No. 74 of 1977 of the Police Station, Kandiaro under sections 379 and 411, P.' P. C. And also sent up under sec--petition' 110, Cr. P. C. In the Proceedings No. 6 of 1976 and, also under Crime No. 39 of 1979 under sections 147, 148 and 447/34, P. P. C. Of Police Station, Naushahro Feroze. It has also been mentioned in the report that he had returned stolen bullocks of Muhammad Siddiq after accepting "BHUNG" money. He had also stolen bullocks of Mehar Lakho and returned to him on intervention of Nekmards.
4. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on the basis of this informa--petition passed an order under section ,.112, Cr. P. C. And remanded the applicant to custody, without passing any orders under section 117 (3), Cr. P. C.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the proceedings against the applicant have been initiated only because the S. H. O. Of the police station and his subordinates hold an opinion that the applicant is by habit a thief etc. It has also been contended that not a single respectable person of the locality has even been cited as a witness. It has also not been shown as to what happened to the proceedings under section 110, Cr. P. C. Of year 1976 and also about the cases under section 379/411, P. P. C. Of 1977 and under section 147/148/447 of 1979 of Police Station Naushahro Feroze. Though it has been specifically alleged in the report that he com- -mitted theft of the bullocks of Mohammed Siddique qbd Mehar Lakho still no one from them has been cited as a witness against,, him and also no one from the "Nekmards" who got the bullocks of M Char Lakho returned to him after intervening in the matter. He relies pon PLD 1975 Kar. 1035, in which my learned brother Mushtak A.I zi, J. As he then was, observed in case of Mazan alias Mazno as under :- "To sustain a charge under section 110, Cr. P. C. He person proceeded against must be proved to be by habit a thief ; receiver of stolen property etc. Habit implies a tendency resulting from repetition of the same acts. It connotes depravity of character as evidenced by frequent repetition or commission of offences of theft, receiving of stolen property etc. It does not mean mere inclination to commit suchoffences by temperament, but persistence capable of 1roof by evidence. Habitmust be proved by aggregate instances and not suspicion basis of complicity in an isolated instance of theft ,or suspicion in respect of another such incident. Thus it is necessary that there should be evidence by large number of persons in respect of definite instances of theft etc. In which the person complained against was involved.
It is true that in cases under section 110, Cr. P. C. Evidence f general reputation can also be given, but reputation means what is theright of a person by others, and the general reputation of a person, is the collective opinion of those in whose midst he lives. Evidence which disc. The existence of such collective opinion, is the evidence in proof of general reputation. This general reputation should, therefore, distinguished from mere opinion or rumour. A man's general reputation is the reputation which he bears in a place in which he lives amongst all the villagers or townsmen. 1f his fellow villagers or towns--men, look upon him as thief or robber, a dangerous man that would be strong evidence of that character. This collective opinion must be distinguished from individual opinion or suspicion of a police officer. Police records of suspects or history-sheets maintained by the police or even entries in the police diaries, would all be inadmissible as evidence of general repute. Likewise mere oral word of a police officer giving his opinion that a particular person is a habitual thief would also be inadmissible as hearsay evidence."
6. Mr. Niaz Ahmad, the learned counsel for the State, has also conceded that none of the cases referred to in the report under section 110, Cr. P. C. Against the applicant have been completed and therefore in cases of this nature where there is only evidence of the policemen regarding the reputation of a particular person, such proceedings are liable to be quashed.
7. The proceeding; pending against the applicant are also based on evidence of police officers only. It would be therefore highly unsatisfactory to pass an order on mere evidence ofs police officers regarding general reputa--petition. It is therefore not proper to allow the proceedings before the learned S. D. M., Naushahro Feroze to continue as that would be leading to unnecessary harassm ent of the applicant.
8. In the result, the proceedings pending against the applicant before the learned S. D. M., Naushahro Feroze are quashed. The bail bonds furnished by the applicant are discharged.