NOOR MUHAMMAD Alias NOORUL vs THE STATE

This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Started against the applicant under section 110, Cr. P. C. By S. D. M. City Division, Karachi on the application of S. H. O., Baghdadi Police Station, Karachi.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 21-4-74 S. H. O., Baghdadi made a report in writing against the applicant that he was a notorious and hazardous criminal who indulged in assaulting the general public. This report was presented to S. D. M., Karachi through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harbour on 29-4-1974. The learned S. D. M. Instead of passing orders under section 112, Cr.

P. C. Passed an order of issue of process as in a case of complaint by directing that bail-able warrants be issued in the sum of Rs. 2,000 against the respondent. The respondent thereafter attended the Court of the S. D. M. But it appears that he did not proceed with the case nor did he pass any orders under section 112, Cr. P. C. Even at this stage. After about 7 months on 28-11-1974 the diary of the proceedings shows that the opponent was present but no P. Ws. Were present and the case was, therefore, put off. On that date the P. S. I. Submitted an application that the opponent had a bad reputation and he was notorious and hazardous criminal who indulged in assaults on the public. That his challan under sec--petition 110 had already been submitted, that non-bail-able warrants may therefore be issued against him. On this application the learned Magistrate passed an order which reads as under:- "As per police report the person is dangerous and hazardous to the community of this area as such he should furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000 each and personal bond of like amount."

The case diary of 28-11-1974, however, contains a further order that P. S. I. Submitted an application.

Issue bail-able warrants against the opponent in the sum of Rs. 5,000 for 12-12-1974. Strangely enough the order under sec--petition 112, Cr. P. C. Was passed for the first time on 12-12-1974 after the present applicant was remanded to custody though no date appears on the order itself.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Nooruddin Sarki on behalf of the applicant that the proceedings being void ab initio could not be validated by passing a belated order under section 112, Cr. P. C. After a lapse of about eight months. It has also been pointed out by Mr. Sarki that in the police report for starting proceedings under section 110, Cr. P. C. The S. H. O., Harbour has merely mentioned the general reputation of the applicant to be a notorious and hazardous criminal. He has neither mentioned any instances of any offences involving breach of the peace nor has he described any incident in which the applicant has acted in a desperate and dangerous manner. Apart from that not a single witness of the said locality namely, Baghdadi area, has been cited in the report as a witness. All that the S. H. O. Has done is that he has mentioned crime numbers of four, cases under sections 307, 13-D, 323, 405 and 426, P. P. C. One more case under the Goonda Ordinance has also been mentioned but it has not been stated whether these cases are pending or have been disposed of and whether the applicant has been convicted or acquitted.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General conceded that the proceed--ings are irregular and the proper procedure has not been adopted either by the S. H. O., Harbour or by the S. D. M. The liberty of a subject cannot be jeopardized merely on a report of this nature presented by the S. H. O. That in his opinion the person was a dangerous criminal. Strictly speaking such cases do not fall within the provisions of section 110, Cr. P. C. Though they might come within the purview of the Goonda Ordinance. The provisions of Goonda Ordinance cannot be circumvented by making a short-cut' and sending up such cases before the S. D. Ms. Entire proceedings appear to have been wrongly started and misconceived. These proceedings under section 110, Cr. P. C. Are accordingly quashed.

The applicant's bail bonds are discharged and the cash security deposit of Rs. 2,000 may be refunded to the depositor.