1. The applicant has challenged the legality of the order, dated 6-2-1991 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Orangi, Karachi under the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, whereby he had ordered immediate arrest of the applicant. The above order was passed on the report submitted to him by the S.H.O. Police Station Orangi. In the said report general and vague allegations were made against the applicant wherein he has been shown as quarrelsome person who keeps on rioting and righting with the people.
2. It is contended by Mr. Amir Ahmed Khan that the report submitted by S.H.O. Did not fulfil the requirements of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 and the learned S.D.M. Bad passed the order thereon without applying his mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. He has relied on the following cases. Shah Nazar Khan v. A.C. And S.D.M. Malir Karachi PLD 1977 Kar. 582, Amir Ali v.
3. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 30, Sachu alias Sache-e-Dino v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 647, Jan Muhammad v. The State PLD 1981 Kar. 682, Ali Bux v. S.D.M Nausharo Feroze 1988 P Cr. L J 619, Muhammad Sadiq v. S.D.M. Tribunal PLD 1981 Kar. 685 and Bahadur Ali v. The State 1990 MLD 1120.
4. The report against the applicant submitted under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 is vague and general in nature and does not contain any specific instances, to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant is a habitual offender and frequently or repeatedly commits the acts of fighting with the people or rioting. No instances with time, date and place have been mentioned, The two cases in which the name of the present applicant appears as an accused person and the third report which is under section 107/117 of the Cr.P.C., do not and cannot stand the test of definition of the words habitual offender which have been repeatedly interpreted in several authorities as a person with continuance and permanence of criminal tendency, that is, something that has developed into a propensity that is present from day to day and its presence is demonstrated by the frequency of the acts that by repetition have come to be associated with the person as the characteristics, or traits of his personality, and is regarded as his customary or usual behaviour which is almost inevitable when the appropriate conditions are present. Similarly habit implies a tendency or capacity resulting from the repetition of the same acts or indulgence therein.
5. It implies I frequent indulgence in such acts connoting depravity of character.
6. Mr. Vakil Ahmed Qureshi learned Advocate appearing for the State has referred the case of Inayat v. State 1989 P Cr. L J 1115 and frankly concedes that he is not in a position to justify the order dated 6-2-1991 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Orangi Town, Karachi.
7. The impugned order is hereby quashed being illegal, unwarranted and without jurisdiction and so also the proceedings pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Orangi, Karachi.