1. ' These three references have been made by the learned H Additior al Sessions Judge, Larkana.
2. They involve common points of law, hence they would be disposed of by this single order. The main point on which the references have been made is that the order under section 112, Cr. P. C. And the order under section 117 (3), Cr. P. C. Were passed on the same day by the learned S. D. M., Larkana in the proceedings under section 1 to initiated by police against the opponents. The order under section 117 (3), Cr. P. C. Was however, passed after recording the evidence of S. H. O. And Police Constable Mohammad Urs of Naudero Police Station on the same day after the order under section 112, Cr. P. C. Was passed. The opponents were remanded to custody for want of surety. The opponents filed separate revision applications in the Court of Session, Larkana and the learned H Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the Advocates of the parties, has made three separate references for quashment of the entire proceedings. The main ground urged in the references is that the evidence of two witnesses was recorded on the same day on which the orders under sections 112 and 117 (3), cr. P. C. Were passed hence the opponents were not given a "reasonable opportunity" to cross-examine the witnesses. It may, however, be pointed out that the provisions of section 117, Cr. P. C. Do not lay, down that a "reasonable opportunity" to cross-examine the witnesses should be given to the person before an order under subsection (3) of section 117. Cr. P. C.
3. Could be passed against him. Subsection (3) lays down that "pending the completion of the inquiry under subsection (1) the Magistrate, of he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of peace or for public safety, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 112, Cr. P. C. Has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or . . . . Until the conclusion of the inquiry and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed". In the light of the above provisions of law no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate. It is not clear from the record whether any application was made by the opponent to the Court for adjournment to engage a counsel and cross-examine the witnesses. However, considering the general principles of the law of evidence if the deposition of a witness is recorded without affording a reasonable opportunity to the person against whom it is used, it is of no legal consequence and no action could be based on it. A serious prejudice has been caused to the opponent by the order gassed under section 117 (3), Cr. P. C. As everything was done on the same day and no reasonable opportunity was given to the opponent to cross-examine the two witnesses examined against him.
4. There is also reason of inordinate delay to quash the proceeding; pending against the opponent.
5. The proceedings have lingered on for over two years hence the reference has been correctly made.
6. ' The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has relied on the two rulings of this High Court reported in PLD 1975 Kar. 90 and PLD 1974 Kar. 85 (sic).
7. ' The learned State Counsel, Mr. Sarki, supports the references and submits that the entire proceedings under sections 110, Cr. P. C. Pending against the opponents in the Court of S. D. M., Larka :a, may be quashed as there was no justification for passing the order under section 117 (3) or 112, Cr. P. C. Against them.
8. ' The facts of the instant case and the precedent case as reported in PLD 1975 Kar. 90 are identical.
9. In the precedent case also the orders under sections 112 and 117 (3), Cr. P. C. Were passed on the same day after recording the evidence of some witnesses to the effect that the accused were habitual offenders and their remaining on bail without sureties would be hazardous to the peace and tranquillity of the society. It has been observed by his Lordship as under :- "In the first place it seems that no opportunity was given to the respondents for cross-examining the witnesses. The depositions of the witnesses in retard to which an opportunity for cross- examination has not been given is not real evidence at all."
10. ' It is, therefore, obvious that the order passed by the learned S. D. M. As not proper, and it must be quashed. A delay of more than 2 years has already occurred and this would be an additional ground for quashing the in proceedings. 1, therefore, quash the proceedings pending against the opponents before the learned S. D. M,, Larkar a and discharge the ball bonds executed by them separately.