1. The applicant who is Kamdar of Zamindar Ali Muhammad in respect of agricultural lands situated in Deh Giring, Taluka Hala and who was arrested on 30th January, 1983 in respect of challan under section 110/55, Cr. P. C. And was further detained by orders of the Assistant Commissioner and S. D.
2. M., Hala, under section 112, Cr. P. C. Passed on 31st January, 1983 and who was also complained against in the report made by S. I. P. Masu Khan, S. H. O. Matiari Police Station in the report under section 4 of the Sind Criminal Control Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has made two applications cited above for quashment of proceedings under section 110/55, Cr. P. C. And section 14 of the Act. Both the applications for quashment are by the same applicant and as alleged by him are due to common factors and, therefore, the same are being dealt in this order together.
3. It is the case of the applicant that he is Kamdar of Zamindar Ali Muhammad of Village Ali Muhammad Detho Taluka Hala and litigation is going on in respect of agricultural lands situated in Lich Giring Taluka Hala belonging to Abdul Rehman and Abdullah minors who are nephews of Ali Muhammad Detho in respect of which C. P No. S-131 of 1981 and C. P. No. D-613 of 1981 were filed.
4. There was order for maintaining status quo but respondent No. 4 in collusion with the Mukhtiarkar Hala interfered with the possession of the lands belonging to the two minors and, therefore, Ali Muhammad who is their guardian had filed suit for declaration and injunction before the IIIrd SeniorCivil --Judge being Suit No. 322 of 1981 and the aforesaid suit was admitted for regular hearing and order for observing the status quo was passed on 17th June, 1981.
5. It is further the case of the applicant that proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Launched at the instance of respondent No. 4 before A. C. And S. D. M. Hala were quashed by the order of the High Court dated 31st January, 1983 and with a view to get at Ali Muhammad his Zamindar, he had been involved in mala fide proceedings.
6. The proceedings under section 110/55, Cr. P. C. Were first started against him and he was arrested and kept in custody in Sub---Jail Hala.
7. A perusal of section 110, Cr. P. C. Would show that before the proceedings could be started the S. D.
8. M. Should have received informa--tion that the person proceeded against is by habit a robber, house breaker, thief, or forger or is by habit committing repeated acts as mentioned in clauses (a) to (f). The only instance of previous habitual involvement given in the challan against the applicant is the verbal allegation of S. I. P. And the witnesses cited are all the three of them police officials. The allegations contained in the F. I. R. Are vague, indefinite and have no nexus with the provisions of section 110, Cr. P. C., as the same are not relatable to the purposes of the section as stated in the different clauses thereof. In Qasim and 2 others v. The State (PLD 1971 Kar. 473); it was observed that the evidence of a Police officer should be put to strict scrutiny in the light of circumstances which formed the basis of his plea and that it is unsafe to base order on his view alone. It was also observed the vague allegation without statement of acts of violence cannot be considered sufficient that the person proceeded against is desperate or dangerous. It is apparent from a perusal of the record that no inquiry had been made by the learned Magistrate before passing of the order under section 112, Cr. P. C. And it is also apparent that the very complaint did not disclose habitual commission of offences and the vague allegations were not shown as supported by any witness from the Public. No list of cases pending against the applicant which could reveal habit was even given in the F. I. R. Before a person could be said to be habitually a thief or robbed it has to be shown that he repeatedly committed thefts or robberies and for the purposes of establishing habit there should be numerous instances quoted.
9. In case of the applicant as is apparent from Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 118 of 1983 not being satisfied with initiating of proceed--ings under section 110, Cr. P. C., on 4th February, 1983 S.-I.
10. P. Musa Khan, S. H. O. Matiari Police Station made a report in writing under section 4 of the Act against the applicant praying for action against him under section 14 of the Act. In the aforesaid complaint it was mentioned that the applicant was in custody for proceedings under section 110/55, Cr. P. C. In Sub-Jail Hala. A perusal of the aforesaid report shows that there was contravention of the provision of section 6 of the Act as the acts with which the applicant was charged and the details of time and place of said acts were not mentioned. As in the previous report about proceedings under section 110, Cr. P. C. Besides the S. H. O. Only three Police officials were mentioned as witnesses. The proceedings entirely based on evidence of Police officials regarding general reputation of the applicant cannot be considered and would lead to unnecessary harassm ent of the applicant.
11. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tanoli, Advocate for the State has conceded that the proceedings taken against the applicant under section 110, Cr. P. C. And section 14 of the Act cannot be supported by him. The aforesaid proceedings initiated against the applicant 'are without lawful authority and, therefore, the applications are allowed and the proceedings are quashed.