1. ' Applicant Ghulam Shabbir has moved for quashment of proceedings pending against him under section 110, Cr.P.C. In the Court of S.D.M. Khairpur.
2. ' According to police report the applicant was big scoundrel and Badmash type of person and he was harbouring criminals who visit him from distance and through whom he gets the offences committed. The applicant was also alleged to be disposing of the property obtained through commission of various offences. He was alleged to be by habit thief, robber and kidnapper. He was alleged to be taking illegal gratification for return of property obtained from theft or robbery or kidnapping. He was also alleged to be harassing poor people.
3. ' On receiving the police report, the S.D.M. Khairpur passed order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Against the applicant. Hence this petition.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar learned counsel for the applicant argued that learned Magistrate had passed order under section 112 of Cr.P.C. Without applying his mind because allegations put in said order were materially different from allegations given in the police report and the applicant was shown accused in one case and suspect in three cases in the police report, while in the said order he was shown accused in four cases and said order was stereo typed one in which merely blanks were filled. It was next argued that all the witnesses cited against the applicant were police personnel. Learned counsel took exception to remanding of the applicant to custody by the S.D.M.
5. In absence of any order under section 117(3) of Cr.P.C. In support learned counsel for the applicant cited the cases of (i) Ghulam Nabi v. State 1985 P Cr. L J 257, (ii) Luqman v. State 1986 P Cr. L J 1230.
6. ' Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi learned AA.-G. Conceded that as per the police report the applicant was accused in one case and suspect in three cases. It was also conceded that the witnesses cited against the applicant were all police people and that the applicant was remanded to custody without an order under section 117(3) of Cr.P.C. Having been passed against him.
7. ' In the case of Ghulam Nabi 1985 P Cr. L J 257 the order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Was passed on the basis of the report made by the S.H.O. That the person complained against is a man of bad character and is a thief and also a habitual offender and he is nuisance to the general public and he had been challaned in two cases, one being a theft case and another case under Arms Ordinance. The view taken was that the allegations against the person complained against, do not strictly attract the provisions of section 110, Cr.P.C. For action against a person who is an offender by habit and the order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Amounted to abuse of the process of the Court and the same was quashed. In the case of Luqman 1986 P Cr. L J 1230 the Magistrate in the proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Passed an order under section 112, Cr.P.C. On the very day of receiving report of the S.H.O. And the order was passed on a carbon copy of the stereo-typed order by inserting therein the names of the witnesses and particulars of the cases in which the person proceeded against was involved and the proceedings taken on a stereo-typed report submitted by the police and based on an order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Passed without application of mind were quashed. In the instant case the allegations against the applicant are general and vague lacking in particulars and instances. In Imdad Khan v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 205 general and vague allegations were made against the person proceeded against who was shown accused in four cases which were not shown decided and the proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Were quashed.
8. In 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 offender, etc. Would not be sufficient for proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Unless such general allegations are backed by particular instances or details. All the witnesses cited against the applicant are police personnel. In State v. Hassad PLD 1976 Kar. 928 it was held that the 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 duties. In Mazan alias Mazno v.
9. State PLD 1975 Kar. 1035 it was held that mere oral word of a police officer given as opinion that a particular person is a habitual thief would be inadmissible as hearsay evidence and that the evidence of general reputation should be given by respectable persons who are acquainted with the person sought to be bound down and are his neighbours and are aware of his reputation. In Uris v. State PLD 1981 Kar. 50 the view taken was that it would be highly unsatisfactory to pass an order under section 118, Cr.P.C. On the mere evidence of police officers regarding general reputation.
10. In light of the case-law discussed above, continuance of the proceedings against the applicant for action under section 110 of Cr.P.C. Would be abuse of the process of Court. The application is therefore, accepted and the proceedings pending against the applicant in Court of the S.D.M.
11. Khairpur under section 110 of Cr.P.C. Are quashed.