These are the following 11 Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of proceedings:- (1)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1056 of 1986MithoS.D.M./Tribunal Naushero Feroze (2)-do-1057 of 1986Lahno -do- (3)-do-1058 of 1986Abdul Hameed -do- (4)-do-1059 of 1986Gahno s/o Alam -do- (5)-do-1060 of 1986Mevo s/o Alam -do- (6)-do-1061 of 1986Mohad s/o Muhammad Hasan-do- (7)-do-1062 of 1986Allah dino s/o Muhammad Ibrahim-do- (8)-do-1063 of 1986Ahmad Khan -do- (9)-do-1064 of 1986Dhani Bux s/o Qadir Bux -do- (10)-do-1065 of 1986Jan Muhammad s/o Muhammad Ismail-do- (11)-do-1066 of 1986Ghulam Hyder s/oMuhammad Ibrahim-do- There being common questions of facts 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. 1058 of 1986 is a retired primary Teacher and is aged about 60 years. The applicant Mitho in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1056 of 1986 is stated to be a man of about 90 years of age. Dhani Bux in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1064 of 1986 is stated to be a minor boy of about 13 years of age. The cases, Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 1057 of 1986, 1062 of 1986, 1063 of 1986 and 1066 of 1986 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 ands 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 sterect,E pe.
No reference has been made to any specific case. There is, in fact, even no challan against any of the applicants in resp--ct of anv cas-- 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 per;;;n has been cited as witness.
4. The R.&Ps. 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 acts complained of, but also mention the details as to the time and place of the commission of such offence. 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 to the instances cases. 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 Crimes Control Act. 1975. Not a single case was challaned or even an F.I.R. Was ever lodged in the police station by anyone 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 the said Act. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Siddique v. S.D.M. Tribunal PLD 19811 Kar. 685 and Mahmood Ahmad (Muhammad Ahmad v. Tribunal/S.D.M.1 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 reumours. 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.
(1)Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1056 of 1986MithoS.D.M./Tribunal Naushero Feroze (2)-do-1057 of 1986Lahno -do- (3)-do-1058 of 1986Abdul Hameed -do- (4)-do-1059 of 1986Gahno s/o Alam -do- (5)-do-1060 of 1986Mevo s/o Alam -do- (6)-do-1061 of 1986Mohad s/o Muhammad Hasan-do- (7)-do-1062 of 1986Allah dino s/o Muhammad Ibrahim-do- (8)-do-1063 of 1986Ahmad Khan -do- (9)-do-1064 of 1986Dhani Bux s/o Qadir Bux -do- (10)-do-1065 of 1986Jan Muhammad s/o Muhammad Ismail-do- (11)-do-1066 of 1986Ghulam Hyder s/oMuhammad Ibrahim-do-