1. ' This application has been moved by one Sikandar son of Ghulam Rasool Machi under section 561- A, Cr.P.C. Seeking quashment of proceedings pending against him under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act in the Court of S.D.M./Tribunal, Rohri, District Sukkur. The proceedings have been initiated on the report of one Muhammad Khan Burero, S.H.O. Police Station Rohri.
2. ' The brief allegations as alleged by the S.H.O. In his report dated 31-3-1992 filed before the S.D.M./Tribunal, Rohri are that, the applicant is a habitual thief, commits thefts, restores stolen property on payment of Bhung, is harbourer of criminals and helps criminals in commission of offence and he is so desparate and dangerous that nobody comes forward from public to give evidence against him. According to the police, the applicant goes armed with dangerous weapons without licence and harasses public. Three cases have been mentioned in the report in which it has been alleged that the applicant has been challaned and the cases are pending against him for the offences under section 457/307, P.P.C., 13-D, Arms Ordinance and section 110, Cr.P.C. It is further alleged in the report that the applicant is so dangerous that his remaining at large will not be in the interest of public.
3. ' Learned S.D.M./Tribunal Rohri initiated proceedings on the basis of the above report against the applicant and remanded the applicant to jaiL Subsequently he was granted bail by this Court on 4-6-1992.
4. ' The main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the allegations mentioned in the report are vague and no clear instance, time and place of the incident has been mentioned in the report. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that in two cases which have been mentioned in the report the applicant has already been acquitted. He has filed true copy of the judgment of Sessions Court in S.C. No,426/89 in which the applicant has been acquitted by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur on 29-3-1992. He has also filed a photo copy of the judgment in which the present applicant has been acquitted by the Additional City Magistrate, Sukkur for the offence under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance being Crime No,188/89 of Police Station Rohri. According to him the proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Had already become infructuous, as the period for which the applicant has furnished surety on the basis of order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Had already expired. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon PLD 1981 Kar. 682, 1990 P Cr. L J 1249 and 1992 P Cr. L J 789.
5. ' Learned counsel for the State has conceded that the learned S.D.M./Tribunal has not followed the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 and he has frankly conceded that this is a fit case in which proceedings may be quashed.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the State and have gone through the entire material which has been placed on record.
7. Out of the three cases which have been cited in the report, the applicant has been acquitted in two cases and in the third case the proceedings have become infructuous.
8. ' It has been consistently held that the essential requirements of the Act are that the report should briefly state (i) facts with which person complained against is charged, (ii) details of time and place of such acts, and (iii) general repute of person complained against or any other allegations made against him. In PLD 1981 Kar. 682 learned Judge of this Court relying upon various judgments of this Court held that mere pendency of cases for various criminal offences against a person will not make a person reasonably believed to be a habitual offender or habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abetter of such crime.
9. ' In the present case the applicant has been acquitted in the cases which are mentioned in the report.
10. ' Keeping in view the above decisions and the observation made therein and the facts of the case, I allow this application as continuation of the proceedings against the applicant on the basis of such report will be abuse of the process of Court. As a result the proceedings against the applicant were quashed on 8-6-1993 by a short order and these arc the reasons for the same. The applicant is on bail and his bail bends arc discharged.