RAMZAN MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL

1. This application has been filed on behalf of applicant Abdul Ghani son of Ali Madad Jagirani for quashment of proceedings pending against him under section 110, Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M., Rohri.

2. The proceedings against the applicant were taken on the basis of a report submitted by one S.H.O. Police Station Dubar in the Court of S.D.M. Rohri under section 110/55, Cr.P.C. The report submitted by the S.H.O. contained only vague allegations against the applicant that the accused was habitual thief and thieves and criminals also visit him. According to the police the applicant is a Badmash and deals in stolen property. Report further shows that no person from the public is willing to give evidence against the applicant and his remaining at large will be hazardous for the public and as such the S.D.M. was requested in the report to proceed against the present applicant under section 110, Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that no private person has been cited as witness in this case. He has further contended that the applicant has not been convicted in any single case mentioned in the report and the police without waiting for the result of the cases has filed this report against the applicant for taking proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. in the Court of S.D.M. He has further contended that the present applicant was sent up under section 110, Cr.P.C. firstly on 12-10-1989 and in these proceedings the learned S.D.M. discharged the applicant on 18-2-1991. He has produced certified copies of the order of the learned S.D.M. dated 18-2-1992 alongwith some other documents. The learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the police subsequently filed a report against the applicant under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. He has also produced photocopy of the report which has been kept on record. According to him proceedings under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act were quashed by this Court on 18-5-1992 and again on the basis of the same instances the proceedings have been initiated against the applicant under section 110, Cr.P.C. and not a single fresh instance has been mentioned in this report.

4. The learned A.A.-G. appearing on behalf of the State has conceded that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are correct and that this is a fit case in which the proceedings may be quashed.

5. I have gone through the record and proceedings of this case. It has always been held that the proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. can only be initiated against a person when there is clear evidence of general reputation that the person proceeded against is by a habit of thief and that the evidence should come from the person among whom the applicant lives or from persons living in neighbourhood. Merely mentioning general reputation of a person to be notorious or a hazardous criminal without mentioning instance of any offence involving breach of peace nor describing any instance of such person has acted in desperate manner. It has always been held by this Court in various judgments that vague and general allegations based on the evidence of police officials is not sufficient for the purpose of initiating the proceedings against any person under section 110, Cr.P.C.

6. It has been held in Ali Sher v. S.D.M., Mirpur Mathelo 1982 P Cr. L J 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 P L D 1975 Kar. 1035, Miral v. State 1978 P Cr. L J 161, The State v. Hasad P L D 1976 Kar. 928, Noor Muhammad v. State 1975 P Cr. L J 1025, Maroo v. State 1980 P Cr. L J 363 and Uris v. The State P L D 1981 Kar. 50.

7. It may be mentioned that the applicant was prosecuted on the basis of similar report under section 110, Cr.P.C. and learned S.D.M. had dropped the proceedings and discharged the respondent under section 119, Cr.P.C. and proceedings against the applicant under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act were quashed by this Court. The learned S.D.M., in fact, should have not proceeded against the applicant as no fresh instance was mentioned in the report. It appears that the learned S.D.M. has initiated the proceedings in this case without applying his mind and has merely on the report of the police initiated the proceedings in a mechanical method.

8. For the above reasons, the proceedings against the applicant were quashed by a short order on 17-6-1993 and these are the reasons for the same. Bail bonds furnished by the applicant stand discharged.

9. N.H.Q./A-1411/K ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed.