1. These are two applications by two real brothers Muhammad and Amir Bux who have challenged the initiation of 110 proceedings against them. Since the nature of allegation against both the applicants and their grounds for quashment are also common, therefore, these applications are disposed of together.
2. On 26-2-1979, the S.H.O. Tando Muhammad Khan submitted two applications under section 110/55, Cr.P.C. Against the present applicants where the allegations were made to the following effect:- "He is a Loafer and is a habitual thief; habitually abets the commission of theft and is a habitual receiver of Bhung. He has no other ostensible means of livelihood, except thefts.
3. He inspires a general awe and terror in public and public have lost their peace of mind. The thieves, Loafers and Badmashes of distant places do visit and harbours them and commits offences through them.
4. He has been challaned in 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code in the year 1979.
5. He is Loafer and Badmash kind of man. He is a great terror for public. His remaining at large is hazardous to public. As such, report under section 110/55, Cr.P.C., is submitted against him in the Honourable Court for taking action."
6. Against Amir Bux there was a further allegation that he has been challaned under Sind Crimes Control Act. Orders under section 112, Cr.P.C., were passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tando Muhammad Khan against both the applicants on 27-2-1979 and they were required to show cause as to why they should not be directed to execute a bond in the sum of Rs 5,000 each with two sureties for maintaining good behaviour for a period of 12 months. Aggrieved against that order the applicants have filed the present quashment applications.
7. Mr. Madadally Shah contends that no specific instance has been cited by the police in their report which could show that the applicants were in the habit of having criminal tendency. He further states that the star witness of the prosecution is one Ghulam Muhammad son of Haji Khan with whom the applicants have a dispute over agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 75 and 7 in Deh Chandio and in support of that the counsel has produced Newspaper 'Ibrat', dated 18-2-1979 where the applicants had got a public notice published where dispute between the applicants and the said Ghulam Muhammad in respect of the said agricultural land was brought out. The submission of the counsel on this aspect of the case is borne out by this newspaper. However, there are three witnesses mentioned by the police in the report and Mr. B.B. Hudda' applications on account of these witnesses who are not connected with Ghulam Muhammad. Submission of the State counsel would have a lot of force if any specific instance had been given by the police to bring the case under section 110, Cr.P.C. Almost all the sub-clauses of section 110, Cr.P.C. From A to E talk of the habit as a robber or thief or receiver of stolen property or the habit of committing kidnapping, abduction or the commission of offences involving breach of the peace. All these sub-clauses A to E can, therefore, be attracted only if there is a conviction in respect of any such offence, but since JA the complaint does not even speak of any such case pending, therefore, the applicant could not be burdened with having such a criminal habit.
8. The only sub-clause (f) of section 110, Cr.P.C. Does not speak of a habit, but requires that a person should be so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. Therefore, the operation of this clause does no require that conviction should be proved against person in order bring the case under this sub-clause. But even then the police o prosecution is bound to state specific instances which could show in prima facie manner that the person is desperate and dangerous. But even such instances are lacking in the case and there is general allegation by the police that the applicants inspire a general awe or any terror in public and public has lost their peace of mind. This state of the mind of the public can only be the result of some action on the part of the applicants which should be specifically and clearly mentioned and unless and until the instances of the desperate and dangerous actions of the applicants are pointed out in the complaint and the Magistrate has exercised his mind in respect of the same, it would not be asserted that they are of a desperate a dangerous character. I would emphasize that sub-clause (f) requires a different type of allegation than sub-- clauses (a) to (e) of section 110, Cr.P.C., and if the desperate and dangerous character is required to be established by conviction is brought out in respect of sub-clauses (a) to (e) then the same should be so mentioned but if this desperate and dangerous character is different from those sub-clauses then the instances of various actions, which a person is alleged to have committed, should be clearly brought out it the complaint otherwise the complaint would be groundless. In the present case, the complaint seems to be groundless as not a single instance is quoted. I may state here that the instance of section 107/151 proceedings cited by the police has been specifically controverted by the applicants in the affidavit and they have asserted that these proceedings were dropped against them. Mr. B.B.
9. Huoda has not been able to produce any evidence to the contrary and, therefore, I will accept the allegation in the affidavit of the applicant as correct. The applicant Amir Bux has also pointed out that the proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act have been quashed by the orders of this High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 97/77 where the judgment was pronounced on 17th July, 1978 and the order passed against Amir Bux under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act was set aside. And, therefore, it was not open to the police on 1-2-1979 to state that C there was any case of Sind Crime Control Act by Maui police against Amir Bux. In these circumstances it appears that the police has been motivated by considerations other than that of law and order to move an application under section 110, Cr.P.C., against the present applicants. The proceedings Lire, therefore, set aside and the bail if any executed by the sureties of the applicants in 110/112, bond Cr.P.C. Proceedings is hereby discharged.