RAZIA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

1. This application has been filed on behalf of Haji. Jam son of Mir Muhammad Matu under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings pending against him under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act in the Court of S.D.M./Tribunal Kingri, District Khairpur. The proceedings in this case have been initiated against the applicant on the basis of a report filed by S.H.O. Mehboob Kalhoro, district Khairpur.

2. The main allegations levelled against the applicant in the report under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act are that, the applicant is by habit a thief, commit thefts, restores stolen property on payment of Bhung and a harbourer of thieves and he is so desparate and dangerous that nobody from the public is prepared to come and give evidence against him, as such his remaining at large will be dangerous for public peace. It is further alleged in the report that the applicant is involved in one case i.e. Crime No.8 of 1992 under section 21(2), Hudood Ordinance. It is also alleged in the report that the applicant has been challaned under section l hl, Cr.P.C. in Court. On the bass of this report the learned S.D.M./ Tribunal Kingri passed an order issuing non bailable warrant against the applicant under provisions of section 5 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is in custody in connection with the above-mentioned proceedings pending against him under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act. According to him the allegations mentioned in the report against the applicant are vague and do not mention the place and time of the incidents, nor any specific instances have been mentioned in that report. He has further contended that the learned S.D.M./Tribunal issued non-bailable process against the applicant without assigning any sound reasons as is contemplated under the Sindh Crime Control Act. According to him, the, learned Magistrate has not passed the order properly and has passed the order mechanically without applying his mind to the facts of the case. He has further contended that not a single private person has been cited as witness in the report of the police, Learned counsel for the applicant has produced a judg4nent of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.194 of 1992 by which his Lordship Mr. Justice Shaukat Hussain Zubedi had quashed the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 110, Cr.P.C which are mentioned in the report of the police vide his judgment, dated 29-4-1992. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that continuation of the proceedings before the Tribunal are clearly in violation of law, and as such are abuse of the process of the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the State has conceded that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are correct and has conceded frankly that this is a fit case in which proceedings may be quashed as, according to him, no case has been made out in the report of the police officer submitted before the S.D.M./Tribunal for initiation of proceedings against the applicant under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. He has further contended that no case has been cited in the report in which the applicant has been convicted, as such he is of the view that the applicant cannot be considered as a habitual offender.

5. I have gone through the entire material placed on the record and also heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the State at some length.

6. Learned Magistrate/Tribunal has not given any sound reasons for issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant. The provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act have not been complied with and the report does not mention any particulars whatsoever of the acts allegedly committed by the applicant. The report also does not give the date, time and place of the alleged acts, nor any copies of the report or complaints have been filed.

7. It is consistently held that essential requirements of the Act are that the report should briefly state (i) the acts with which the person complained against is charged, (ii) the details of time and place of said acts and (iii) general repute of a person complained or such other allegations made against him. In the present case, these provisions have not been complied with.

8. It has also been observed in various judgments of our own High Court that mere fact that a person is suspected in some offence or offences or even that he was challaned in respect of certain offences would not be sufficient to bring his case within the purview of section 14 of the Act. Mere mention that the applicant had a reputation of notorious and hazardous criminal without specifying the instances of his being involved in any incident or breach of peace or acting in a desperate and dangerous manner, mentioned in the report and the mere citation in the report of some cases without indicating the result was not sufficient to bring the case of the applicant within the purview of section 14 of the Crimes Control Act.

9. In the present case the proceedings mentioned in the report under section 110, Cr.P.C. have already been quashed and the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act have neither been complied with by the police nor by the Magistrate, who has initiated proceedings on the same report under the Act, as such continuation of proceedings against the applicant are clearly abuse of the process of the Court, as a result of that. By a short order dated 17-6-1993 I had ordered the quashment of proceedings against the applicant and ordered that the applicant be released, if not required in any other case, and these are the reasons for the same.

10. N.H.Q./H-367/K Proceedings quashed.