1991 PCr (PLP)

S. 14

`Habitual offender'

Definition.

[Words and phrases]. The words habitual offender which have been repeatedly interpreted in several authorities as a person with continuance and permanence of criminal tendency, that is, something that has developed into a propensity that is present from day to day and its presence is demonstrated by the frequency of the acts that by repetition have come to be associated with the person as the characteristics, or traits of his personality, and is regarded as his customary or usual behaviour which is almost inevitable when the appropriate conditions are present. (c) Sindh Crimes Control Act (IV of 1975)

S. 14

`Habit'

Connotation.

[Words and phrases]. Habit implies a tendency or capacity resulting from the repetition of the same acts or indulgence therein. It implies frequent indulgence in such acts connoting depravity of character. Amir Ahmed Khan for Applicant. Vakil Ahmed for the State. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1991. The applicant has challenged the legality of the order, dated 6-2-1991 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Orangi, Karachi under the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, whereby he had ordered immediate arrest of the applicant. The above order was passed on the report submitted to him by the S.H.O. Police Station Orangi. In the said report general and vague allegations were made against the applicant wherein he has been shown as quarrelsome person who keeps on rioting and righting with the people. In the report three cases pending, against the applicant have been mentioned. The petitioner has alleged that his father Ashqeen had lodged report at Police Station Orangi Town on 26-4-1990 being F.I.R. No.164/90 against some persons for offences under section 307/34, P.P.C. The S.H.O. took no action against the culprits and the father of the applicant had to report against him to the higher authorities/including D.I.-G. Police. On 7-9-1990 two F.I.Rs at Nos.236/90 and 237/90 were lodged at the same police station against the applicant, his father, his brother Sadiq and one Imtiaz who is witness in F.I.R. Case No.164/90. The first F.I.R. was lodged by Zahid Muhammad Khan and the other by Muhammad Tariq for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 323/504 and 506/34/323/504, P.P.C. respectively. On 6-2-1991 a report under section 107/117, Cr.P.C. was submitted to the said S.D.M. against the applicant, his father Ashqeen, his brother Sadiq and Abid and Imtiaz, the latter two being the witnesses in F.I.R. No.64/90. It is to be noted that the last report was-submitted on the same day when the S.H.O. submitted the report against the applicant under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. It is contended by Mr. Amir Ahmed Khan that the report submitted by S.H.O. did not fulfil the requirements of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 and the learned S.D.M. bad passed the order thereon without applying his mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. He has relied on the following cases. Shah Nazar Khan v. A.C. and S.D.M. Malir Karachi P L D 1977 Kar. 582, Amir Ali v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 30, Sachu alias Sache-e-Dino v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 647, Jan Muhammad v. The State P L D 1981 Kar. 682, Ali Bux v. S.D.M Nausharo Feroze 1988 P Cr. L J 619, Muhammad Sadiq v. S.D.M. Tribunal PLD 1981 Kar. 685 and Bahadur Ali v. The State 1990 M L D 1120. The report against the applicant submitted under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 is vague and general in nature and does not contain any specific instances, to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant is a habitual offender and frequently or repeatedly commits the acts of fighting with the people or rioting. No instances with time, date and place have been mentioned, The two cases in which the name of the present applicant appears as an accused person and the third report which is under section 107/117 of the Cr.P.C., do not and cannot stand the test of definition of the words habitual offender which have been repeatedly interpreted in several authorities as a person with continuance and permanence of criminal tendency, that is, something that has developed into a propensity that is present from day to day and its presence is demonstrated by the frequency of the acts that by repetition have come to be associated with the person as the characteristics, or traits of his personality, and is regarded as his customary or usual behaviour which is almost inevitable when the appropriate conditions are present. Similarly habit implies a tendency or capacity resulting from the repetition of the same acts or indulgence therein. It implies I frequent indulgence in such acts connoting depravity of character. Mr. Vakil Ahmed Qureshi learned Advocate appearing for the State has referred the case of Inayat v. State 1989 P Cr. L J 1115 and frankly concedes that he is not in a position to justify the order dated 6-2-1991 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Orangi Town, Karachi. The impugned order is hereby quashed being illegal, unwarranted and without jurisdiction and so also the proceedings pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Orangi, Karachi. M.A.K/M-1447/K Application accepted.