1988 P Cr (PLP)

This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings pending against the applicant under section 110, Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.M. Harbour, Karachi.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that on 3‑10‑1987 S.H.O. Police Station TPX filed a report under section 110, Cr. P . C . before the learned A . C . / S . D . M . Harbour, Karachi, inter alia alleging therein that the applicant /respondent is a vagabond and has no source of income. He is involved in different cases of rioting and beating which are sub-judice before the Courts. He is also involved in a case under Zina Ordinance of P.S. Landhi and has been released on bail. He has also been involved in a case under section 117, Cr.P.C. and an order under section 117(3), Cr.P.C. was passed against him, and he has been bound down. The respondent teases the people of the locality and he extracts money from them. He was warned many times but he has not been able to mend his ways. In the list of witnesses two witnesses are shown while no particulars of the cases are mentioned in the report. The learned S.D.M. passed an order under section 112, Cr.P.C. on 4th October, 1987.

3. The learned S.D.M. Harbour without examining any witness passed an order under section 117 clause (3), Cr.P.C. which reads as under:‑ "After perusal of the application of the S.H.O. against the respondent I am satisfied that immediate measures are necessary for preventing the respondent from commission of any offence and for reasons of public safety, I direct to respondent to furnish his personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties for maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the enquiry. The sureties must be solvent persons possessing immovable properties and able to control the respondent from committing any offence etc. during the pendency of these proceedings." The order passed under section 117(3), Cr.P.C. does not show as to on what date this order was passed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Jalaluddin Baloch learned counsel appearing for the State.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the allegations against the applicant are vague and general in nature. No specific instance with time, date and place of the acts alleged against the applicant are mentioned in the report, No F.I.Rs. have been filed alongwith the report. That there are only two witnesses mentioned in report. The applicant is a respectable social worker which is clear from the certificate dated 3rd March, 1987 which has been produced as Annexure 'D'. That no case was made out under section,

110. Cr.P.C. against the applicant and the order passed under section 117(3) was illegal inasmuch as no enquiry was held by the learned S.D.M. nor any witness was examined.

6. Mr. Jalaluddin Baloch learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that in view of the above circumstances the proceedings against the applicant under section 110, Cr.P.C. were unwarranted and the cognizance taken by the learned S.D.M. and order passed under section 117(3) were illegal.

7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents produced alongwith the report. Admittedly the report is vague and general in nature. No specific instance viz. time, date and place of acts complained is mentioned in the report. Only two witnesses have been mentioned in the complaint. There is no allegation that the applicant was ever convicted for having committed any crime. The order under section 117(3), Cr.P.C. passed by the learned S.D.M. was illegal inasmuch as no enquiry was held by him nor any witness was examined, but it was passed only on the basis of application moved by the S.H.O.

8. In view of the above circumstances the above application is allowed and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 110, Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed. M.Y.H./A‑244/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed.