1. ' This application has been moved on behalf of Akbar son of Allah Bachayo Ghanghro against whom proceedings have been initiated under section 110, Cr.P.C. By the S.D.M., Kandiaro on the basis of report submitted by one Muhammad Uris, S.H.O. Police Station Kandiaro. The case against the applicant is pending before the S.D.M., Kandiaro.
2. ' The main allegations levelled against the applicant by the police are that he is a habitual thief, commits thefts, restores stolen properties on payment of Bhung and that his main source of income is thefts. It is further alleged in the report that the applicant harbours thieves and helps criminals in commission of offences. According to the report of the police the applicant is so desperate and dangerous that nobody comes from public to give evidence against him. It has been further reported in the report of the police before the S.D.M. That the applicant is so desperate and dangerous that his remaining at large will be hazardous to the community. The learned S.D.M.
3. Initiated action against the applicant and passed order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Against the applicant calling upon him to furnish solvent surety. On his failure to do so, he was remanded to custody without even passing order under section 117(3) of Cr.P.C.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that no private person has been cited as witness in this case. He has further contended that the applicant has not been convicted even in single case mentioned in report submitted by the S.H.O. And the police without waiting for result of the cases filed report against the applicant for proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. In the Court of S.D.M. He has further contended that no order under section 117(3), Cr.P.C. Has been passed against the applicant. He has further contended that the order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Was passed on 10- 2-1992 for giving surety for 12 months and even the term for which he was called upon to furnish surety has expired on 9-2-1993, as such no further action can be taken by the Magistrate in these proceedings.
5. ' Learned AA.-G. Has conceded that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are correct and that continuation of proceedings before the Court of S.D.M. Against the applicant will be abuse of process of Court, as such the proceedings may be quashed.
6. ' I have gone through the entire record and find that not only the period mentioned in the order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Is over but even otherwise not a single person from the locality has been cited as a witness in the report submitted by the police against the applicant. All the witnesses cited in the report belong to police.
7. ' It has always been held that the proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Can only be initiated against a person when there is clear evidence of general reputation that the person proceeded against is by habit a thief and that evidence should come from the persons among whom the applicant lives, or from persons living in the neighbourhood. Merely mentioning general reputation of a person to be notorious and hazardous criminal without mentioning instances, of any offence involving breach of peace nor describing any incident in which a person has acted in desperate and dangerous manner. It has always been held by this Court in various judgments that vague and general allegations based on the evidence of Police Officer is not sufficient for the purpose of initiating proceedings against any person under section 110, Cr.P.C.
8. ' It has been held in Ali Sher v. S.D.M., Mirpur Mathelo 1982 P Cr. L J 750 that expression of habit and habitual under section 110, Cr.P.C. Implies numerous instances of acts to establish factum of habit against person proceeded under section 110, Cr.P.C. One or two instances would not be sufficient to prove cases of such person to fall within the mischief of section 110, Cr.P.C. It has further been held that evidence of general repute of a person complained against under section 110, Cr.P.C. Is admissible in evidence of such reputation. However, it must come from persons among whom he is living or persons living in the neighbourhood. Vague and general allegations on evidence of Police Officer alone held is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Similar observations have been made in cases of Mazan alias Mazno PLD 1975 Kar. 1035, Meeral v. The State 1978 P Cr. L J 161, State v. Hassad PLD 1976 Kar. 928, Noor Muhammad v. The. State 1975 P Cr. L J 1025, Maroo v. The State 1980 P Cr. L J 363 and Uris v. The State PLD 1981 Kar.
9. 50.
10. It has been further held that general reputation has to be distinguished from rumour which is inadmissible in evidence. Reputation means what is thought of a person by others and general reputation of a person is the collective opinion of those in whose midst he lives; whereas evidence of rumour would be mere hearsay evidence. The evidence of general reputation which a man bears in the place in which he lives amongst all the residents of the locality that they look upon him as dangerous person and of bad habits would be strong evidence that the man is of bad character. Thus, evidence of general reputation ought to be given by respectable persons who are acqainted with the person who lives in the same neighbourhood and are aware of his reputation. It would not ordinary be sufficient to examine merely the Police Officers and their subordinates to prove general reputation of a person. Court cannot accept the evidence of Police Officers alone unless they had some special means to know the reputation in the course of their official duty.
11. Police record of suspected cases of history sheet maintained by the police or even the entry A in the crime register or police diary would all be inadmissible as evidence of general repute. Likewise mere oral word of Police Officer giving his opinion that the person is habitual thief or receiver of stolen property would be inadmissible as mere hearsay evidence. This view has been repeatedly held in number of decisions of this Court.
12. ' It has been observed that habit implies a tendency resulting from repetition of same acts. It connotes depravity of character by frequent repetition or commission of offences of theft and receiving of stolen property etc. It does not merely mean inclination to commit such offences by temperament but persistence capable of proof by evidence. It has been held that habit must be proved by aggregate instances and not on the basis of complicity in an isolated instance of theft or suspicion in respect of any such incident. Thus, it is necessary that there should be evidence by a large number of persons in respect of definite instances of theft etc. In which the person complained against was involved.
13. ' It is clear that the term for which the applicant was supposed to bound down as shown in order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Is already over. Apart from the legal aspect of the case, the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel clearly show that the proceedings have been wrongly initiated on the report submitted by the S.H.O., Kandiaro Police Station as these are based on the evidence of Police Officers only and it would be unsatisfactory to pass an order on mere evidence of Police Officer regarding general reputation.
14. ' Learned AA.-G. Has rightly conceded that continuation of proceedings under these circumstances against the applicant pending in the Court of S.D.M., Kandiaro will be abuse of the process of Court.
15. ' In the result of the above discussions, the proceedings pending against the applicant before the learned S.D.M., Kandiaro are hereby quashed. Bail bonds furnished by the applicant are discharged.
16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court from where it was called.
17. ' I had disposed of this application and quashed the proceedings on 17-6-1993 by a short order and these are the reasons for the same.