' This application for quashment of proceedings has been filed on behalf of applicant Ghulam Hyder. The proceedings are pending against the applicant in the Court of SDM/Tribunal Kingri under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975.
2. The proceedings against the present applicant have been instituted on the basis of a report filed by S.H.O. Ahmedpur. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar has contended that no instances as required under the Sindh Crimes Control Act have been mentioned by the police in their report nor any instances, time and place of the instances have been mentioned in the report submitted by the police against the applicant. He has further contended that only two cases have been shown in the report by way of instances and even according to him these two matters A have not yet been decided by the Court and are still pending. He has further contended that the police without waiting for the results of these cases prematurely submitted the report against the applicant for initiation of proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. According to him the learned SDM and the Tribunal has passed an order under section 8(3)(b) of the Sindh Crimes Control Act by issuing non-bailable warrants against the present applicant without recording evidence of any person and ordered the detention of the present applicant for two months in judicial lock-up. He has further contended that nobody from public has been cited as a witness in the report of the police and only police persons have been shown as witnesses in these proceedings. In view of these facts the learned counsel has contended that the proceedings initiated by the learned SDM Kingri are illegal and continuation of such proceedings before the Court will be an abuse of the process of the Court. He has relied upon 1989 PCr.LJ 756 in which it has been observed that merely mentioning a number of cases is not sufficient compliance of the requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. He has further relied upon 1989 PCr.LJ 611 in which it has been observed that "habitually and frequently" used in section 14 denote a constant habit on the part of a person to commit such offence and solitary case against accused and two cases against co-accused had no direct nexus to the allegations contained in the report and the material in the report was not sufficient to show that the person against whom the proceedings were initiated frequently and habitually committed one or more offences as mentioned in section 14 of the Act.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan who appeared on behalf of the State conceded that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant were correct and frankly stated that the continuation of proceedings against the applicant, in view of the above circumstances, will be an abuse of the process of the Court.
4. Considering all the above facts and the legal points involved in this matter I had directed by a short order, dated 7-11-1993 quashing the proceedings pending against the applicant before the SDM Kingri. The bail bonds furnished by the applicant before the Court were also ordered to be discharged and the record and proceedings were directed to be sent to the concerned Court and these are the reasons for the short order passed by me on the abovesaid date.