' This application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has been made with a prayer that the proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal Garhi Yasin in case State v. Mehmood under section 110/55, Cr.P.C. Wherein the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal has passed the order, dated 14-3-1998 under section 112, Cr.P.C. May be quashed.
2. The facts of the matter in brief are that the S.H.O. Chak Police Station District Shikarpur on 14-3- 1998 submitted a report No,3 of 1998 under section 110/55, Cr.P.C. Before S.D.M. And Tribunal Garhi Yasin stating therein that the applicant is resident of territorial jurisdiction of learned Tribunal and that the applicant is a hardened criminal and by habit commits and abets the commission of crime and that he is visited by people from distant places to whom he give refuge and with them commits and abets commission of theft, abets the disposal of stolen property and gets the stolen property released for ransom and that he moves about duly armed with deadly weapons and nobody from public is prepared to come forward to speak or give evidence against him openly or secretly due to his threats and harassment and that he is instrumental to causing breach of peace and tranquility in the society and his remaining at large is hazardous to public in general. In the report the S.H.O. Has cited three instances as follows:--
(i) Crime No,44 of 1997 under sections 506, 323, 325, 147 and 148, P.P.C.
(ii) Crime No,7 of 1996 under section 17(3), H.O., 392, 457, 458 and 337/11(ii); and
(iii) ' Proceedings No,17 of 1986 under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. On such report the learned S.D.M. And Tribunal on the same day viz. 14-3-1998 passed order under section 112, Cr.P.C. And remanded the applicant to custody for want of surety. It is stated that subsequently the applicant was released on bail. No further progress has, however, been made till today.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that no specific allegation has been made against the applicant with any time, date and place and that no specific instances have been alleged to establish commission of an offence by habit and that there are only general and vague allegations against the applicant. He submitted that in none of the offences cited as instances against the applicant, which he has been convicted, the entire proceedings including order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Initiated on the aforementioned report of the police are illegal and are liable to be quashed.
He has placed reliance on cases of Arsala v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 2219, Muhammad Qasim alias Ganja v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 21 and Sodho v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 340.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State frankly submitted that there is no substantial material available or evidence recorded against the applicant and whatever the allegations have been leveled against the applicant do not attract the provisions of section 110, Cr.P.C. He submitted that he does not support the prosecution case.
5. The applicant has been reported against under section 110, Cr.P.C. For convenience sake section 110, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced as follows:-- "110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders.--- Whenever a District Magistrate, or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a (an Executive Magistrate) specially empowered in this behalf by the Provincial Government receives information that any person within the local limits of his jurisdiction--
(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief or forger, or
(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or
(c) habitually protects or harbors thieves or aids, in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or
(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter VII of the Pakistan Penal Code, or under section 489-A, section 489,B, section 489-C or section 489-D of that Code, or
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offence involving a breach of the peace, or
(t) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in manner hereinafter provided require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behavior for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix..."
6. Perusal of the R & Ps shows that neither the report nor the order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Contain any specific allegation or instance to suggest that applicant by habit is a thief, protector or harbored of thieves or receiver or disposer of stolen property or aids the commission of aforementioned offences by habit or by habit commits or abets the commission of any offence involving breach of peace or that, is so desperate and dangerous that his remaining outside jail is detrimental to the community. In nutshell, nothing is available on the record to attract the provisions of section 110, Cr.P.C. Mere pendency of some cases against a person does not seem to be sufficient substance for initiation of action under section 110, Cr.P.C. If reference is required the same may be made to case of Arcola v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 2219. Learned counsel for applicant has .Categorically stated that the applicant has not been convicted in any of the three offences cited against him and this statement has not been controverted by the learned counsel appearing for State. The instances so cited against the applicant show that out of these three crimes two relate to remote past i,e, pertaining to the year 1979 and 1986 and third one is a singular offence of 1996 and thereafter, no instance as to criminal activity has been cited against the applicant.
Accordingly, in my view, in the instant case provisions of section 110, Cr.P.C. Are not attracted with the result that the prosecution case fails. I accordingly allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Application and quash the proceedings initiated against the applicant.