1. ' In this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. An order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shikarpur against the applicant is sought to be quashed. The impugned order reads as under:- Order under section 112, Cr.P.C.
2. ' WHEREAS, information has been laid before me by the Lakhigate Police, Shikarpur, that you reside within the local limits of the Court. It is alleged against you that:-
(1) You are famous thief, commit thefts.
(2) You harbour thieves of far away places.
(3) You receive and dispose of stolen property.
(4) You move armed with deadly weapons and there are such complaints against you.
(5) You are desperate and dangerous thus nobody dares to depose against you.
(6) Your remaining at large without proper security would be hazardous for the public peace and tranquillity. The following cases have been cited against you:-{{TABLE}}
(1) Crime No, 25/1972 under section 6, Gambling Act.
(2) Crime No, 34/1973 under section 37, P.P.C. And 13-D, Arms Ordinance.
(3) Crime No, 16/1974 under section 380, P.P.C.
(4) Report No, 2/1977 under section 110/55, Cr.P.C.
(5) Crime No, 28/1974 under section 324, P.P.C.
(6) Crime No, 36/1976 under section 324/54, P.P.C.
(7) Crime No, 62/1976 under section 13-DA, Ordinance.
(8) Crime No, 23/1978 under section 324, P.P.C.
(9) Report No, 5/1978 under section 10/55, Cr.P.Code.
(10) Report No, 1/1979 under section 14, SCC Act 76.
(11) Report No,8/1980 under section 110/66, Cr.P.Code.
(12) Report No,3/1981 under section 110/66, Cr.P.Code.
3. ' The following witnesses have been cited against you:
(1) Saddaruddin son of Muhammad Ibrahim Bhutto.
(2) Fazal Muhammad son of Choithram Shaikh.
(3) Anwar son of Gul Muhammad Bhutto.
(4) Wazir son of Allah Bux Malan.
(5) S.H.O. Muhammad Khalid of P.S. L/Gate.
(6) S.H.O. Abduo Hussan S.H.O. L/Gate.
(7) S.H.O. Fateh Muhammad Awan.
(8) Kaley Khan son of Sababir Khan Moughal.
(9) H.C. Amanullah of P.S. L/Gate.
(10) P.C. Nisar Ahmad of P.S. L/Gate
(11) S.H.O. Abdul Sattar of P.S. Lakhigate, Shikarpur.
4. ' AND WHEREAS there are sufficient grounds to proceed against you under section 110, Cr.P.Code.
5. ' You are therefore, hereby called upon to show cause as to why you should not be ordered to execute a bond in the sum of Rs, 5,000 (five thousand) with one surety solvent in the like amount for maintaining good behaviour for a period of 12 months to the satisfaction of this Court.
6. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that out of 12 cases mentioned in the order, the applicant was awarded conviction only in one case mentioned at serial No,1 and order for his detention was passed in the case mentioned at serial No,12 and he was let off in all other cases. He has further urged that the instances mentioned in the order do not make out a case for passing an order under section 112, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel appearing for the State concedes that the grounds Nos.1 to 5 stated in the impugned order are not attracted but the ground No,6 does arise in view of involvement of applicant in number of cases mentioned in the order.
7. ' There is no doubt that the applicant was involved in as many as 12 cases mentioned in the impugned order. Of course, he was convicted only, in one case and order for his detention was made in another case and his involvement in other cases may not be lost sight of. But none of the cases, mentioned in the order could furnish evidence to support the grounds No,1 to 5 stated in the order. They may be considered as the circumstances to lend support to the ground No, 6 mentioned in the order. It thus, appears that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind but he has just reproduced the ingredients of section 110, Cr.P.C. In the order and called upon the applicant to show cause why he should not be bound down for maintaining good behavior. Such an order is not sustainable in law and is quashed. .