1986 PLP 1868 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 9th February, 1984. This is a petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. and prayer made therein is to call for the record and proceedings of a case under section 14 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 pending in the Court of S.D.M. Mehar District Dadu and quash the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are that S.H.O. , Mehar police station lodged complaint on 19 2‑1982 in the Court of S.D.M./Tribunal Mehar district Dadu against the applicant under section 4/14 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 stating therein that the applicant is notorious thief, previous convict and is by habit a receiver of stolen property and receiver of Bhung. The applicant is giving shelter to proclaimed offenders and creates disturbance in public peace and tranquillity by making quarrels and instigates the small boys for unnatural offence etc. The District Magistrate accorded permission to initiate proceedings under section 4/14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, Learned Tribunal i.e. S.D.M., Mehar passed an order purported to be under section 8 (3)(b) of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 on 20‑2‑1982 for a period of two months.

3. Mr.Mazhar Ali B Chohan Advocate made his submission on behalf of the applicant. He read out the complaint filed by the S.H.O. Manzoor Hussain before the Tribunal. His complaint recites the specific instances i.e. Crime No.49 of 1970 under section 302, P.P.C. which ended in acquittal, Crime No.97 of 1979 in which case is still pending and two other cases in which he was acquitted. In three cases the applicant was acquitted. The complaint of the S.H.O. is of a. general nature and reputation is shown that the applicant is notorious. This is clear that the cases given as instances are those in which the applicant is either acquitted or the case is pending in the Court.

4. The learned counsel has further submitted that on 8‑2‑1982 the proceedings under section 110 were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court and immediately thereafter the applicant on 20‑2‑1982 was hauled in under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. He has submitted that the applicant is victim of a double jeopardy. The learned counsel has further contended that the learned tribunal by passing the order has violated sections 5 and 4 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 as such Whole proceedings are vitiated. Lastly he has submitted that no case under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 is made out.

5. I am referred to (1) P L D 1981 Kar. 136 (2) P L D 1981 Kar. 682 and (3) P L D 1981 Kar. 685 Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 enumerates the offences under which an action could be taken. In the instant case general repute is emphasised. In the authority Aftab Alam v . Province of Sind reported in P L D 1979 Kar. 645 his Lordship Ajmal Mian, J. after reviewing a large number of cases deduced therefrom following principle: "The 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 abetter of such crime." The few cases which are cited in the complaint of the S.H.O. are those cases in which the applicant is either acquitted or the case is pending. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is a habitual offender.

6. In this particular case I find that no sooner than proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. were quashed by the High Court, the proceedings were initiated under Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The applicant appears to be victim of double jeopardy. In the proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. same instances were cited as in the proceedings under Sind Crimes Control Act. Under these circumstances, order of the learned Tribunal cannot be maintained and the proceedings against the applicant are hereby quashed. S.A.???? Petition accepted.