' The material facts culminating in this application filed under section 561--A, Cr.P.C. briefly, are that on 22-5-1990 S.H.O. Mochke Police Station laid an information before Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Baldia, Karachi, to the effect that the applicant herein is a person of evil repute, who is in the habit of unauthorised occupying or encroaching upon the land belonging to Government, and is no desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security, hazardous to the community. On the basis of this information the learned S.D.M. passed an order on 23-5-1990 directing immediate arrest of the applicant. It is in these circumstances that the applicant has approached this Court seeking quashment of proceedings pending against him under section 110, Cr.P.C. in the Court of S.D.M. Baldia, Karachi.
2. I have heard Mr. S.M. Sayedain Zaidi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Jalaluddin Baloch, learned counsel for the State. The latter has supported the impugned action by stating that the applicant is also involved in the following cases:-- (i)X/1985107/151/117, Cr.P.C.
(ii)X/1985Section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975.
(iii)X/1989107/151/117, Cr.P.C.
(iv)X/1989107/151/117, Cr.P.C.
3. Section 110, Cr.P.C. provides as follow: "Whenever a District Magistrate, or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the Provincial Government receives information that any person within the local limits of his jurisdiction: (a)is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or (b)is by habit a receiver of stolen property by knowing the same to have been stolen, or (c)habitually protects or harbours thieves or aids, in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or (d)habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Pakistan Penal Code, or under section 489-A, section 489-B, section 489-C, or section 489-D of that Code, or (e)habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace or (f)is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix."
3. A bare perusal of the above section makes it clear that a person who is by habit a land grabber cannot be bound down under section 110, Cr.P.C. My own observations in the case of Muhammad Qasim alias Ganja v. The State, reported in 1990 PCr.LJ 21, in respect of the drug pedlars are clear and they apply with full force to the facts of the present case. At page 24 it was observed:-- "The object of section 110, Cr.P.C. is preventive and not punitive. As observed in Emperor v.
Vijayyadatta Jha Naraindatta, reported in AIR 1984 Nag. 28, the very terms of the section show, that it is intended to control the activities of persons who are by habit robbers, house--breakers, thieves, or forgers, receivers of stolen property or those who habitually protect or harbour thieves or aid in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or those who habitually commit or attempt to commit, or abet the commission of the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or who are in the habit of committing or getting involved in the commission of offence involving a breach of peace, or generally those who are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community. It will be seen from the wordings of section 110, Cr.P.C. that the persons who are by habit drug pedlars do not fall under any of the categories mentioned therein.
6. An attempt has also been made to bring the case against the applicant within the mischief of clause (f) of section 110, Cr.P.C. This aspect of the case was also dealt with by me in para. 7 of the above-cited judgment, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-- "An attempt was made to bring his case within the purview of clause (f) of section 110, Cr.P.C. A person of desperate character or dangerous character means a person who shows such a reckless disregard of the safety of the person or the property of his neighbours that his being at large without security would be detrimental to the community. The fact that a person is by his temperament quarrelsome and that he occasionally gives threat does not make him a desperate character or one who is dangerous to community ...."
7. Out of the above-cited four cases the proceedings in respect of the case shown at Serial No.(ii) are already quashed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.916 of 1985, while the fate of rest of the cases is not known.
8. Having regard to the above position the proceedings drawn against the applicant under section 110, Cr.P.C. amounts to an abuse of the process of law I and cannot be sustained. The application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., is therefore, allowed and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 110, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Baldia are hereby quashed.