1. ' This application has been filed by one Sain Bux son of Sanwan Khaskheli, under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking quashment of proceedings pending against him under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act in the Court of S.D.M./Tribunal Kandiaro, District Naushero Feroz.
2. ' The proceedings have been initiated against the applicant on the basis of report filed by the S.H.O., Police Station Lakha.
3. ' The brief allegations as alleged by the S.H.O., Police Station Lakha in his report against the present applicant are that he is a habitual thief, commits thefts, restores stolen property on payment of Bhung and that his only source of income is on committing thefts. It is further alleged in the report that the applicant harbours thieves and helps criminals in commission of offences and that he is so desperate and dangerous that nobody comes from public to give evidence against him.
4. According to police report he always goes armed with dangerous weapons to commit crime and is connected with gang of dacoits.
5. ' Learned S.D.M./Tribunal initiated proceedings against him on the basis of this report filed by the police against the applicant. The Tribunal issued summons in the first instance against the applicant for his appearance but subsequently issued non-bailable warrants against him. On the basis of the warrants he was arrested and produced before the S.D.M./Tribunal and was remanded to custody by the Tribunal on account of his not being able to furnish surety.
6. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that not a single witness from public has been cited as prosecution witness in this case and only two persons both belonging to police have been cited as prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the applicant has been acquitted in one of the cases mentioned in the report. He has produced true copy of the judgment which has been brought on record. The other cases have not been decided so far. He has further contended that the allegations mentioned in the report against the applicant are vague and no definite instance has been mentioned in the report, nor any time and place has been mentioned therein.
7. According to him the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act have not been complied with, as such initiation of proceedings against the applicant under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the provisions of law and as such continuation of the proceedings on the basis of this report would be abuse of process of the Court.
8. ' Learned A.A.-G. Appearing for the State has conceded that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are correct and has further frankly stated that this is a fit case in which proceedings may be quashed, as otherwise it will amount to abuse of process of Court.
9. ' It has been held in the case of Saffar v. The State 1992 P Cr. L J 789 by our High Court that the report filed by the S.H.O. Of the police station upon which cognizance was taken by the S.D.M. Shows that the allegations levelled against the applicant were of general nature and were vague, no instance of commission of any acts alleged against the accused/applicant had specifically been given, no doubt that three cases had been mentioned in which the accused was involved but he was not convicted in any one of them. It was held that the learned S.D.M. Has not properly exercised his jurisdiction and the order passed by him was without application of his mind and accordingly it was held further that the action taken by the S.D.M./Tribunal was not in accordance with the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act.
10. ' It appears from the record that the report of the S.H.O. Police does not even mention the relevant clauses of section 14 covering the petitioner's acts and even the order of the learned S.D.M./Tribunal issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner does not mention the relevant clause of section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act covering the petitioner's acts. It has been observed in PLD 1978 Kar. 305 that in absence of any details as to the nature, time and place of acts alleged against the petitioner, it is difficult to hold that the case of the petitioner falls within any of the clauses of section 14 of the Act. It has been further observed in the same judgment that non- bailable warrants can be issued against any person by the Tribunal when it appears to such Tribunal upon the report of the Police Officer or upon other information the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Tribunal that there is reason to apprehend the commission of the acts complained against and that such commission of the acts cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Tribunal may at any time issue warrants for his arrest provided further that every warrant so issued shall be accompanied by a copy of report, which shall be delivered to the person stating (i) the acts with which the person complained against is charged, (ii) details of time and place of such acts and general reputation of the person complained against or other such allegations made against him.
11. ' It has been observed in PLD 1978 Kar. 368 that habit implies a tendency or capacity resulting from the repetition of the same acts. It implies frequent indulgence in such acts connoting depravity of character. To prove a person to be by habit a thief, the prosecution must adduce evidence of commission of number of similar acts in each of which the person must be shown to have involved.
12. For, habit has to be proved by aggregate facts and mere suspicion or complicity in isolated acts would not constitute habit. Thus, the allegations must not to be vague, but there should be definite instances of such acts against the person proceeded against with details of time and place of such acts. It has been further observed in this judgment that the report should also cite evidence of general repute. Suspicion is some times mistaken as evidence of general repute. Suspicion is not, however, admissible as the evidence of general repute and is also governed by the ordinary rules and principles of evidence. By reputation is meant the estimation or the collective opinion of those in whose midst a person lives and this should be disclosed by facts cited by such persons. General reputation must be distinguished from rumour which is inadmissible in evidence, for rumour is mere hearsay evidence while evidence of repute is the evidence of the persons to whom the man is known and among whom he has lived showing that such persons by observing the man closely would know his habits and tendencies and S.H.O. Or Police Officer making report against a person on the basis of police record of suspected cases could not be considered to be giving authoritative evidence in respect of general reputation of a person, as such evidence would be based on suspicion and rumour and would hardly be admissible as evidence of general repute. It has been further observed in Division Bench Judgment in Constitutional Petition No,919 of 1975 that an order for furnishing interim security would be without jurisdiction when there was no material to sustain such an order. An order under section 8(3)(b) of Sindh Crimes Control Act could not be based on mere speculation or an apprehension expressed by the police. The order should be objective one showing the material leading to a conclusion that immediate measures are necessary for making such an order.
13. ' It has been observed in various judgments of this Court that the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 being the statute curtailing liberty of a person provisions of the Act have to be strictly followed and disregard of the provisions of the Act affects the entire proceedings.
14. ' In 1990 P Cr. L J 1249 it has been observed that the allegations against the accused were vague and general in nature and no specific instance, time, date and place has been mentioned in the report and the cases against the accused mentioned in the report were still pending before the Court. The accused was not a previous convict of any substantive offence. Proceedings initiated under Sindh Crimes Control Act were quashed. It has also been observed in 1977 P Cr. L J 746 that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on police report containing no particulars of time and place of acts alleged against him nor such report accompanied by copies of the First Information Reports or copies of the complaints made against him by the residents of locality it was held that the proceedings initiated were in disregard of the provisions contained in section 5 and section 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act.
15. ' It has been observed in PLD 1979 Kar. 229 that mere fact that a person is suspected in some offence or offences or even that he was challaned in respect of certain offences held would not be sufficient to bring his case within purview of section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act.
16. ' It has been held in PLD 1980 Kar. 267 that the report submitted by police wholly vague, lacking in particulars without detailing time and place of the acts charged but giving by way of particulars a list of seven cases in which the petitioner was challaned. It was observed that mere list of cases in which the petitioner was challaned cannot be substitute for statement of particulars to be given under section 5. Taking of cognizance on such report was held not proper.
17. ' In numerous cases this Court has held that cognizance under the Act cannot be sustained in the absence of completion of requirement of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act.
18. The Tribunal has not even mentioned in its order as to which clause of section 14 of the said Act was attracted to the case of the applicant. Thus, the tribunal has not acted legally in taking cognizance against the applicant.
19. ' Issuance of non-bailable warrants against the applicant merely on the statement of S.H.O., that summons cannot be served on the applicant as he was a hardened criminal without any report or information to show that there was reason to apprehend the commission of the acts complained against and that such commission of the acts cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest of such person is not proper. The tribunal can, however, issue non-bailable warrants on the report of Police Officer or upon other information, the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Tribunal that there is reason to apprehend commission of such acts complained against and that such commission of the acts cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest of such person. The tribunal may at any time issue, warrants for his arrest. Every summons or warrants thus issued shall be accompanied by a copy of the report and such copy shall be delivered to the Police Officer serving or executing such summons or warrants to the person served with or arrested under the said Act provided that the report shall briefly state (i) acts with which person complained against is charged, (ii) details of time and place of such acts, (iii) general reputation of the person complained against or such allegations made against him.
20. ' In the present case the issuance of non-bailable warrants without such report was neither proper nor legal. Even the report submitted by the police in this case appears to be vague and no details of time and place of the incident are mentioned in the report.
21. ' Learned AA.-G. Has, therefore, rightly conceded that this is a fit case in which proceedings may be quashed as even not a single private person has been cited as witness in the report of the police.
22. Relying upon the observations made in various cases by our own High Court, I am of the view that the proceedings against the applicant in the E present case have not been lawfully taken and as such continuation of proceedings in the Court will be abuse of the process of Court. As a result of the above discussion, the proceedings against the applicant pending before the S.D.M./Tribunal, Kandiaro, District Naushero Feroz are hereby quashed. The applicant has already been released on bail. His bail bonds are discharged and the record and proceedings of the case be sent back to the Court of S.D.M./Tribunal, Kandiaro, District Naushero Feroz.
23. ' I have disposed of this application and quashed the proceedings on 17-6-1993 by a short order and these are the reasons for the same.