1995 PLP 575 (MLD)

Abdul Ghani Shaikh, AA.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1994. Applicant Mangan has moved for quashment of the proceedings under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act (hereafter mentioned as the Act) pending against him in Court of the Tribunal and S.D.M., Math. According to the police report submitted by S.H.O. Math, applicant Mangan is loafer and dealing in narcotics, with no other ostensible means of livelihood. The applicant is also alleged to be committing offences with criminal type of persons who visit him. He is also alleged to be disposing of stolen property on receiving "Bhung". After receiving the police report, the Tribunal and S.D.M., Math ordered issue of non-bailable warrants against the applicant. Mr. Muhammad Jamil Zubedi learned counsel for the applicant argued that the police report contains general and vague allegations, which are short of the particulars required to be given under section 6 of the Act and that all the witnesses cited against the applicant are police officials and that the applicant is shown to be accused in one case of 1987 and another case of 1990. Mr. Abdul Ghani Shaikh learned AA.-G. supported the application for quashment. He argued that the Tribunal and S.D.M., Math had violated the provisions contained in section 5 of the Act by issuing Warrants for arrest of the applicant. Learned AA.-G. conceded that mere pendency of two cases against the applicant would not be sufficient for passing order under section 14 of the Act and that all the witnesses cited against the applicant were Police officials. In the case of Amir Ali and others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 30 it was observed that the foremost and fundamental conditions necessary for initiating proceedings against a person under Sindh Crimes Control Act is, that there should be material before the Tribunal to show that the person proceeded against `frequently and habitually' committed one or more acts mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (xxxv) of section 14 of the Act or has the reputation of habitually committing these acts. It was also observed that the expression `habitually' and `frequently' used in various sub-clauses of section 14 of the Act are keywords which spell out the intent of the Legislature and these expressions denote a consistent regular and undeterred course of conduct followed by a person over a length of time, and cannot be interpreted so as to cover an isolated or astray act of an individual, however, grave it may be in its nature, and which may also fall under one or more sub-clauses of section 14 of the Act. In the cited case, the reports filed by the Police Officers before the Tribunal contained allegations which were general and vague in nature and they did not contain the details of acts, time or place of occurrence, as required under section 6 of the Act. In these circumstances the proceedings were quashed. In the case of Aftab Alam alias Matoo v. Province of Sindh and 2 others PLD 1979 Kar. page 645 a D.B. of this Court held that mere pendency of cases for the various criminal offences against a person, will not make him a person reasonably believed to be a habitual offender or habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such crime. Proceedings under the Act were quashed in the cases of Noor Ahmad alias Shishoo v. S.H.O. and another PLD 1986 Kar. page 648 and in Ali Bux v. S.D.M., Naushero Feroze and another 1988 PCr.LJ page 619 because allegations in the police report were vague and general without details about time, date and place of the crimes allegedly committed by the persons proceeded against. Present case is covered by the cited cases. It is not mentioned in the police report as to which of the specific offences were committed .by the applicant. Names of the persons visiting the applicant, have not been given in the police report: The applicant is shown to be accused in two criminal cases but he is not shown to have been convicted in any case. All the witnesses are police officers. It appears that no criminal case has been registered against the applicant after 1990. For the foregoing reasons this application is accepted and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14 of the Act, before E the Tribunal and S.D.M., Matli, are hereby quashed. Such short order was passed by me on 22-3-1994 and these are reasons for the same. N.H.Q./M-2032/K Proceedings quashed.