1. ' Applicant Haji Muhammad Ayoob has moved this application for quashment of proceedings under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act (hereafter to be mentioned as the Act) pending against him in Court of the S.D.M., Baldia Township, Karachi.
2. ' According to police report the applicant has no means of livelihood except land grabbing and roiting. He is said to be bully type of person, having sold Government land to innocent persons. His activities have been hazardous to the general public. He is shown to be accused in six cases.
3. ' On receiving police report, the Tribunal and S.D.M. Issued warrants of arrest against the applicant.
4. ' Mr. Munawar Malik, learned counsel for that applicant argued that police report against the applicant was submitted on 19-5-1993, when previous proceedings against the applicant were quashed under an order of this Court on 19-6-1990. It was also argued that the allegations in the police report were incomplete and were in disregard to the provisions contained in section 6 of the Act and that the Tribunal had acted in violation of section 5 of the Act .By issuing warrants for arrest of the applicant. It was next argued that the applicant had no previous criminal record and the allegations in the police report were unsubstantial. It was also argued that mere giving of list of criminal cases in which the applicant was accused, is no compliance with section 6 of the Act.
5. ' Mr. Zaheer Qureshi, Advocate for Advocate-General, Sindh for State, supported the application of quashment by arguing that pendency of the proceedings under section 14 of the Act was abuse of the process of law.
6. In the police report, it has not been mentioned as to which of the lands were grabbed by the applicant and which of the Government lands he had sold and to which person such land was sold. Mere allegation that activities of the applicant were hazardous to the general public is not enough. The applicant is shown to be accused in six criminal cases, 3 of which are of 1986, two are of 1989 and one is of 1992. Mere pendency of the criminal cases against the person proceeded against, will not make him a person reasonably believed to be a habitual offender or habitually addict to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such crime, as observed in the case of Aftab Alam alias Matoo v. State PLD 1979 Kar.
7. 645.
8. ' Proceedings under section 14 of the Act were quashed in the cases of Ali Bux v. S.D.M., Nausharo Feroze 1988 PCr.LJ 619, Noor Ahmad alias Shishoo v. S.H.O. And another PLD 1986 Kar. 648, Amir Ali and others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 30 on the ground that the allegations against the applicant were general and vague. In the case of Muhammad v. S.D.M. And Tribunal, Mirpur Sakro and another 1983 PCr.LJ 439 the view taken was that passing. Of an order for issuance of N.B.W. As well as taking of cognizance on the basis of the police report containing general and vague allegations, was without jurisdiction and in complete violation of sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
9. ' In view of the legal position discussed above this application is accepted and the proceedings pending under section 14 of the Act, against the applicant in Court of the Tribunal and S.D.M., Baldia Town are hereby quashed. Such short order was passed on 25-4-1994 and these are the reasons for the same.