1. ' The applicant has sought quashment of proceedings arising out of Case No,55 of 1999 (Re: State v.
2. Shankar Lai) pending before learned S.D.M., Rohri under section 110/55, Cr.P.C.
3. ' On 8-11-1999, S.H.O., Police Station Pano Akil submitted a report before the learned S.D.M., Rohri with a request to proceed against the applicant under section 110/55. Cr.P.C. It was stated in the said report that the applicant is by habit a wrongdoer; criminals of different areas visit him; is thief by habit so also disposes of the theft properties; by habit makes display of the weapons; creates fear and harassm ent in masses; by habit is a blackmailer; by habit himself takes drugs and also indulges in selling the same and that nobody from the public is prepared to give evidence against him, therefore, his remaining at large is hazardous to public.
4. ' On such report having been placed before learned S.D.M., Rohri, he passed an order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with one solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. In the like amount for maintaining good behaviour for a period of 12 months.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that only vague and general allegations have been made against the applicant, no number of particular offence has been cited to establish that the applicant is by habit a wrongdoer as alleged in the police report. The witnesses cited against him are all the police officials and that four instances cited against him are indicative of diverse tendencies of wrongful activities falling under different provisions of the law. Besides, according to learned counsel, in all the cases cited against the applicant, he has been acquitted. He has submitted certified true copy/photo copy of the judgment in three cases whereas in Crime No,5 of 1997 he has orally stated that it also stands decided. He has placed reliance on case-law reported in:--
(1) 1984 PCr.LJ 1276, (2) 1988 PCr.LJ 352, (3) 1992 PCr.LJ 2219, (4) 1993 PCr.LJ 2294, (5) 1994 PCr.LJ 502 and (6) 1994 M LD 869.
6. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh has very frankly conceded that this application be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rohri be quashed.
7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and of learned A.A.-G. And I have also gone through the material available on record. On examination of the police report as well as the order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Passed by learned S.D.M., Rohri, it is manifest that only general and vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant, no identical criminal case has been cited to constitute habit of the applicant in commission of such crimes, the witnesses cited against him are police officials and in three out of four cases cited against the applicant, he has been acquitted. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the applicant, as discussed below is also advantageous to the applicant.
8. ' In case of Allah Bachayo alias Lala v. S.D.M., Hyderabad 1988 PCr.LJ 352, my learned brother Nasir Aslam Zahid, Judge of this Court (as he then was) while ordering for quashment of proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Initiated against the applicant therein has observed as follows:-- "On going through the report made by the S.H.O. And also the order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Passed by the learned S.D.M. More than 3 years ago on 19-4-1984, it is apparent. That no action or proceedings should have been taken on the information laid by the S.H.O. Under section 110, Cr.P.C.
9. The allegations in the report are vague, general in character and sweeping in nature. No particulars of time and places, when the applicant was supposed to have committed the acts complained of, are given."
10. ' In case of Abdul Ghani v. The State reported in 1994 PCr.LJ 502, my learned brother Mr. Justice Akhtar Ali G. Qazi, Judge of this Court (as he then was) while quashing the proceedings pending against the applicant therein before the learned S.D.M., Rohri under section 110, Cr.P.C. Has observed as follows:-- "It has been held in Ali Sher v. S.D.M., Mirpur Mathelo 1982 PCr.LJ 750 that expression of habit and habitual under section 110, Cr.P.C. Implies numerous instances of acts to establish the factum of habit against the person proceeded under section 110., Cr.P.C. One or two instances would not be sufficient to prove case of such nature to fall within mischief of section 110, Cr.P.C. It has always been repeatedly held by the higher Courts that evidence of reputation must come from a person among whom he lives or person living in the neighbourhood. Vague and general allegations on the evidence of police officials alone held is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Such observations have been made in cases of Mazan v. The State PLD 1975 Kar. 1035, Miral v.
11. State 1978 PCr.LJ 161, The State v. Hasad PLD 1976 Kar. 928, Noor Muhammad v. State 1975 PCr.LJ 1025, Maroo v. State 1980 PCr.LJ 363 and Uris v. The State PLD 1981 Kar.
12. 50."
13. ' Yet, in another case reported as Noor Nabi v. The State 1994 M LD 869 my learned brother Mr. Justice Akhtar All G. Qazi, Judge of this Court (as he then was) while ordering the quashment of like proceedings has observed as follows:-- "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."
14. ' In case of Arsala v. The State reported in 1992 PCr.LJ 2219, my respectable brother Mr. Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, Judge of this Court (as he then was) while quashing the like proceedings pending before learned S.D.M., Kandhkot under section 110, Cr.P.C. Has observed as follows:-- "The applicant is shown to be accused in one case of Arms Ordinance. Mere pendency of one or more criminal cases against a person would not be sufficient for taking action under section 110, Cr.P.C., as held in the case of Luqman v. State 1986 PCr.LJ 1230. The allegations against the applicant are identical with allegations against him in the case under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act. For the foregoing reasons, the application for quashment is accepted and proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of S.D.M., Kandhkot under section 110, Cr.P.C. Are hereby quashed. The applicant be released from jail if not required in any other case."
15. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the case-law, this application for quashment of the proceedings is accepted and the proceedings pending before S.D.M., Rohri in Case No,55 of 1999 under section 110/55, Cr.P.C. Against the applicant are quashed.