' This application has been filed under section 561-A of the Cr. P. C. For quashment of proceedings initiated and pending in the Court of the Resident Magistrate, Hala, against the applicant under section 430, P. P. C. It is stated that the S. H.
0. Hala had filed in his First Information Report at Matiari Police Station, which was initially registered under rule 43, Defence of Pakistan Rules, on allegations of sabotage but finally the challan against the applicant was put up for an offence under section 430, P. P. C. For the sake of convenience the contents of the F. I. R. May be reproduced: "The Rohri canal and some of its distributory and their watercourses pass through Hala Taluka, District Hyderabad. Recently there was a big breach in Rohri canal and the whole Rohri canal system was damaged causing loss of property including standing crops. The sources have reported that the following Zamindars namely 1. Usman Ghani.
2. Achar Lighari 3. Vikio Lashari 4. Jan Muhammad Talpur Khakoo Sahto 6. Haji Ghulam Hussain Khokhar 7. Moso Pitafi 8. Abdul Majid Khokhar 9. Haji Usman Jarwar 10. Muhammad Hassan Sarawal
11. Nasir Khan Madwani 12. Budho Khan Pitafi 13. Khudadino Sheikh 14. Ghulam Muhammad Halepota
15. Dost Ali Khokhar 16. Kamdar of Fazal Ali Shah 17. Mir Sher Muhammad 18. Bahadur Sand 19. Kauro son of Chuto and Lokhadino son of Bhaledino 20. Mir Ghulam Abbas 21. Muhammad Hashim Abrejo
22. Haji Saleh Uner 23. Chaudhry Ayoob 24. Abdullah Halepota and some other Zamindars, Kamdars, agents, servants etc., with the intent to impair the efficiency and to cause damage to Rohri canal have tampered with the modules, blocked minor distributories given cuts, vanjhies in the canals and thus have sabotaged the whole Rohri canal system. As the offence is non-bailable and cognizable, I register the case on behalf of the State and proceed to investigate.
(Sd.) NOOR HUSSAIN SHAH S. H.
0., HALA."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant alone was selected for the purpose of prosecution although the names of about 24 Zamindars were mentioned besides this in the First Information Report. This according to him was on account of political reasons but as the case had not been proceeded with it is not proper to examine the matter from that point of view.
3. The applicant was arrested and his bail application was rejected by the S. D. M., Hala, whereafter on moving the Court of Session, Hyderabad, the Additional Sessions Judge granted him bail on 10- 8-1974 and Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, the learned counsel for the applicant referred to para. 7 and para. 8 of the bail order as being relevant for considering the present application. The same said paras.
Read as under :- Para.
7. The F. I. R. Is very vague. No particulars of offence are mentioned therein. In fact, besides the present applicant, 23 other persons are also implicated in this F. I. R. Without giving any detail of the alleged violation committed by them. This could hardly be a first information report in the eye of law. Para.
9. The perusal of the record and the police papers show that there is absolutely no evidence against the present applicant, connecting him with this crime. I agree with the learned A. P. P. When he states that there is no evidence of sabotage against the present applicant I am also in agreement with the learned counsel for the applicant that the suit filed by the applicant against the Government to assert his right is the main cause of the case.
' The applicant has filed copies of the 161 statements in support of his-application and contends that neither are the F. I. R. Nor the statements referred to above disclose anything by which it could be said that the applicant could be connected with the commision of offence under section 420, P.
P. C. This indeed is true and Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, the learned counsel for the State and who has gone through the contents of these documents is also of the some fact. The F. I. R. Appears to be based on mere presumption. The statement of the witness do not disclose any person to have seen the applicant committing the offence. There is no specific allegation of any offence against the applicant in any of the documents referred to by the learned counsel.
4. The learned counsel then referred to proceedings filed by the applicant against the Government of Sind i. e. Suit No, 99/1973 pertaining to somewhat approach which was sanctioned in his favour but was threatened to be closed subsequently. He had obtained an order of injunction against the Government which was again the subject-matter of the appeal filed by the Government in this Court. This according to the learned counsel was the background of the applicant being involved in the case. However, this being the allegation of motive cannot be gone into at this stage without the scrutiny of the relevant material. It is sufficient for the purpose of this application that the papers of the prosecution available do not appear to involve the applicant for the offence alleged to have been committed by him. In these circumstances it would not be proper that the proceedings are allowed to continue as the same may amount only to cause harassment.
5. For the above reasons this application is allowed and the proceeding pending against the applicant in the trial Court are quashed as prayed.