These are the following Cr. Misc. Applications under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of proceedings:- (1)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1056 of 1986 Mitho v. SDM/Tribunal Naushero Feroze.
(2)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1057 of 1986 Lahno v. SDM/Tribunal, Naushero Feroze.
(3)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1058 of 1986 Abdul Hameed v. S.D. M./Tribunal, Naushero Feroze.
(4)Criminal Misecellaneous Application No. 1059 of 1986 Gahno son of Alam v. S.D.M./Tribunal, Naushero Feroze.
(5)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1060 of 1986 Mevo son of Alam v . S. D.M. /Tribunal, Naushero Feroze..
(6)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1061 of 1986 Muhammad son of Muhammad Hussain v.
S.D.M./Tribunal, Naushero Feroze.
(7)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1062 of 1986 Allahdino son of Muhammad Ibrahim v.
S.D.M./Tribunal, Naushero Feroze.
(8)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1063 of 1986 Ahmed Khan v. S.D.M./Tribunal, Naushero Feroze.
(9)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1064 of 1986 Dhani Bux son of Qadir Bux v. S.D.M./Tribunal, Naushero Feroze.
(10)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1065 of 1986 Jan Muhammad son of Muhammad Ismail v. S.D.M./Tribunal, Naushero Feroze.
(11)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1066 of 1986 Ghulam Hyder son of Muhammad Ibrahim v.
S.D.M./Tribunal, Naushero Feroze.
There being common questions of fact and law involved in all these cases they are heard together and disposed of by this judgment.
2. The petitioner (Abdul Hameed) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1056 of 1986 is a retired Primary Teacher and is aged about 60 years. The applicant Mitho in Cr. Misc. Application No.1056/8B is stated to be a man of about 90 years of age. Dhani Bux in. Cr. Misc. Application No. 1064/86 is stated to be a minor boy of about 13 years of age. The cases Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 1057/86, 1062/86, 1063/86 and 1065/86 have been registered against all the four sons of one Muhammad Ibrahim, namely, Lahno, Allahdino, Ahmad Khan and Ghulam Haider. All the above eleven cases were registered on one and the same date, on a report submitted by the S.H.O. Police Station, Padidan on 17-6-1986 in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal, Naushero Feroze for action against all the applicants under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 whereupon the learned Magistrate/ Tribunal issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of all the applicants. In consequences thereof, all the applicants were arrested and brought before the learned Tribunal who sent them to jail.
3. Mr. Allah Bux Panhwar Waryani, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the allegations, as contained in the report of the S.H.O., are vague. The reports in all these cases are of stereotype.
No reference has been made to any specific case. There is, in fact, even no challan against any of the applicants in respect of any case. Reliance is placed by the counsel on Shahid Mahmood v. The State and another 1984 P Cr . L J 1317. The counsel submits that witnesses cited are the S.H.O. And his 2/3 subordinates. No private person has been cited as witness.
4. The R & P in all these cases have been received in this Court, and perusal of the same support the submissions of the learned counsel. There is one and the same report submitted by the S.H.O.
To the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate/ Tribunal containing the same and similar allegations against all the applicants. They appear to be of stereotype. They are vague and of general and sweeping nature.
5. The offence under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, as habitual offender, is to be inferred from series of criminal acts committed by the offender and such acts must be of such a nature so as to show that the person complained against has committed any of the offences mentioned under section 14 of the said Act. The report of the police officer must not only refer to the act complained of, but also mention the details as to the time and place of the commission of such offences. The report as to the commission of the offences must either be supported by giving the details of cases pending or decided against the said person. The information as to the commission of the offence, must emanate from members of the public, particularly of the locality concerned and not only the policeman. To bring the case within the four corners of section 14, it is the aggregate of instances and not one or two instances in isolation and that too vague, as in the instant case. The instances must not be based on mere suspicion but on actual and definite incidents. There appears no material on record, on the basis of which proceedings could be initiated against the applicants under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975. Not a single case was challaned or no F.I.R. Was ever lodged in the police station by any one else in connection with crime of any sort whatsoever against any one of the applicants. Reliance may be placed on Jan Muhammad v. The State PLD 1981 Kar. 682.
6. It also appears that the non-bailable warrants in all these cases were issued without proper application of mind by the learned Tribunal. There is, therefore violation of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of D the said Act. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Siddique v. S.D.M. Tribunal PLD 1981 Kar. 685 and Mahmood Ahmad (Muhammad Ahmad v. The Tribunal/S.D.M. City Hyderabad PLD 1985 Kar. 187).
7. The reputation of the person as to his character or general behaviour must also be based on the collecting of evidence of the people of the locality and not on mere rumours. In the instant cases no witness from the public has even been cited by the police. Reliance may be placed on Nazam alias Mazno v. The State PLD 1975 Kar. 1035.
8. For all the reasons aforesaid, I allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications and quash the proceedings in all the above cases to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and secure the ends of justice. Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmad learned Assistant Advocate-General, in his usual fairness, also concedes to it.
9. In view of the order passed hereinabove Miscellaneous Applications for stay of proceedings, having become infructuous, are dismissed.