1. ' This application for the quashment of proceedings has been filed on behalf of Noor Nabi son of Karam Ali Khan Pathan which are pending in the Court of learned S.D.M. Shikarpur under section 110/55, Cr.P.C.
2. ' Main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the proceedings against the applicant have been initiated on the basis of a report submitted by S.H.O. Fida Hussain Lahori of Police Station Sultankot. He has contended that, as usual, vague and general allegations have been levelled against the present applicant in the report submitted by the police. He has further contended that the applicant has not been convicted in any case before this nor any such fact is mentioned even in the report submitted by the police. He has further contended that not a single person from the public has been even cited as a witness by the police in the report and all the witnesses shown in the report belong to police force. According to the learned counsel for the applicant only one case has been cited in the report of the police for offence under section 216-A, P.P.C. He has further contended that the learned S.D.M. Has not even passed any order under section 117, Cr.P.C. And the applicant was remanded to judicial custody without passing any order under section 117, Cr.P.C.
3. ' The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has conceded that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are correct and no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue in the Court of S.D.M. Shikarpur and according to him it will be abuse of the process of the Court if the proceedings are allowed to continue against the applicant.
4. ' It is settled principle of law that to prove a person to be a habitual offender, there should be evidence against the person proceeded against under section 110, Cr.P.C. Consisting of the persons of the locality where that person resides. It has also been held in various judgments of High Courts that to hold a person habitual offender the evidence of only police officers is not sufficient. The proceedings against the present applicant are pending since 31-12-1992. It appears from the record that the applicant has remained in judicial custody also for nearly one year.
5. ' Considering all these facts and circumstances I had ordered the quashment of proceedings pending against the applicant under section 110/55, Cr.P.C. In the Court of S.D.M. Shikarpur by a short order dated 16-12-1993 and these are the reasons for the same.