1. Applicant Arsala has filed this application for quashment of proceedings pending against him in Court of the S.D.M. Kandkot under section 110 of Cr.P.C.
2. According to the police report applicant Arsala is scoundrel indulging in commission and abetment of the thefts. He has been committing and abetting commission of offences, with deadly weapons jointly with other criminals and thieves who visit him from distant places. He has been selling and purchasing stolen property. Applicant is also alleged to be encroaching and abetting encroachment on urban plots. He is also teasing the ladies at the road crossings.
3. On receiving the police report, the S.D.M. Proceeded against the applicant and remanded him to custody. Hence this application.
4. Mr. Muhammad Murad Chachar, learned counsel for the applicant argued that there were general and vague allegations against the applicant, with no instances and particulars about the acts allegedly committed by the applicant. It was further argued that all the witnesses cited against the applicant are police officers and that the applicant is not shown to be accused either-in a theft case or in a case about disposal of stolen property and that the only case pending against the applicant as per police report, was one under Arms Act.
5. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, AA.-G. For State did not oppose the application. He conceded that pendency of one case under Arms Ordinance and another case under Sindh Crimes Control Act, with similar allegations, would not make the applicant a person reasonably believed to be a habitual offender.
6. There are general and routine allegations against the applicant lacking in particulars and instances. Names of the criminals visiting the applicant have not been given. It has not been mentioned as to whom the applicant restored the stolen property on payment of money.
7. Allegation that the applicant was illegally occupying the plots, does not come within the ambit of section 110 of Cr.P.C. In the case of Miral v. State 1978 P Cr. L J 161, it was held that mere vague and general allegations against a person that he is a habitual robber, house-breaker, thief, receiver of stolen property, taker of Bhung, harbourer of criminals etc. Would not be sufficient for initiating proceedings against such person unless such general allegations are backed by particular instances or details and particulars of the criminal habit or habits alleged against him. In the case bf Emperor v. Ali Sher Dost Muhammad AIR 1939 Sindh 261 it was held that a mere repetition of the clauses of section 110, Cr.P.C. Does not satisfy the provisions of section 112 of Cr.P.C. In the case of Qasim and others v. State PLD 1971 Kar. 473, an order under section 118 of Cr.P.C. Was set aside because there were vague allegations and details in respect of the allegations were lacking and nothing incriminating was secured from the persons facing proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C.
8. Proceedings were also quashed in the cases of Muhammad Saleh v. State 1981 P Cr. L J 373 and Imdad Khan v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 205, where there were general and vague allegations in the police report against the persons proceeded against.
9. All the witnesses cited against the applicant are police officers. In they case of State v. Hassad PLD 1976 Kar. 928, it was held that it would not ordinarily be sufficient to examine merely the Police Officers and their subordinates to prove the general reputation of a person, as the Court cannot accept the evidence of police officers alone unless they had special means to know the reputation in the course of their official duties. In the case of Ali Sher v. S.D.M. Mirpur Mathelo and another 1982 P Cr. L J 750 it was held that evidence of general reputation in a case under section 110, Cr.P.C. To come from persons amongst whom the person proceeded against is living or from the persons living in the neighbourhood and vague and general allegations of police officers alone were not sufficient to initiate proceedings under section 110 of Cr.P.C.
10. The applicant is shown to be accused in one case of Arms Ordinance. Mere pendency of one or more criminal cases against & person would not be sufficient for taking action under section 110, Cr.P.C., as held in the case of Luqman v. State 1986 P Cr. L J 1230. The allegations against the applicant are identical with allegations against him in the case under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act. For the foregoing reasons, the application for quashment is accepted and proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of the S.D.M., Kandkot under section 110, Cr.P.C. Are hereby quashed. The applicant be released from jail if not required in any other case.
11. These are reasons for my short order dated 24-12-1991 in identical terms.
12. N.H.Q/A-1220/K