1999 P Cr (PLP)

under sections 302, 307, 506/2, P.P.C. (4) Crime No.45 of 1992 under sections 342, 365, P.P.C. 13(d), Arms Ordinance. (5) C‑2 of 1990 under section 107/150, Cr.P.C. (6) C‑14 of 1990 under section 107/150, Cr.P.C. (7) C‑38 of 1995 under section 107/150, Cr.P.C. (8) C‑2 of 1995 under section 14, S.C.C. Act. (9) C‑7 of 1995 under section 107/150, Cr.P.C. (10) C‑8 of 1997 under section 107/150, Cr.P.C

3. On submissions of such report the learned Tribunal recorded the statement of S.H.O. and passed order under section 5 of the Act (ibid) and also issued warrants of his arrest. After arrest he was produced before the Tribunal and S.D.M. Garhi Yasin on 17‑3‑1998 and was remanded to jail. On 20‑3‑1998 he was ordered to be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount. On 30‑3‑1998 an order under section 6 of the Act (ibid) was passed and thereafter, no progress has been made. It is noteworthy that no witness has been cited in the police report.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued the matter. His contention is that the allegations made against the applicant are vague and general in nature so much so that no specific instances with date, time and place of the acts alleged against the applicant have been mentioned in the report nor the report discloses that the applicant has ever been convicted or ordered to furnish bond for keeping peace. He submitted that the applicant was previously proceeded against under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act on report of former S.H.O. of the same police station on 26‑10‑1995 making almost the same allegations and citing same instances. These proceedings were challenged under Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.276 of 1996 which were quashed by this Court vide its order passed on 11‑10‑1996. He submitted a photo copy of the said order. According to him the instant proceedings against the applicant are mala fide and in violation of provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act ibid and not sustainable under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act and are liable for quashment. He has placed reliance on cases of Muhammad Naseem Qureshi v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1249, Shahbaz Dino v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 269 and Abdul Manan v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 564 and a unreported case of Yakoob son of Ghulam Muhammad Tanwari and another in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos.276 of 1996 and 278 of 1996.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State frankly stated that there is no substantial material against the applicant and submitted that he does nor support the prosecution case.

6. Perusal of the police report shows that all the offences excepting one instance viz. report bearing No.8 of 1997 under section 107/150, Cr.P.C. all relate to the year 1995 and years prior to that time. The order, dated 11‑10‑1996 passed by my learned brother Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar shows that the proceedings initiated on police report, dated 26‑10‑1995 stand quashed, thus, after quashment of the said proceedings only in one matter preventive proceedings under section 107/150, Cr.P.C. seem 'o have been initiated against the applicant. Besides, all the allegations made against the applicant are vague and without quoting any specific instance and also without mentioning any date, time and place of the acts alleged against the applicant. The applicant is also not alleged, to be a previous convict. On the contrary perusal of the order, dated 11‑10‑1996 shows that Crime No.90 of 1990 under section 302, P.P.C. was withdrawn by the State and that the preventive proceedings initiated in the year 1995 and prior to that must have been disposed of by this time. Had there been any adverse order against the applicant it must have been mentioned by the police in their report and absence thereof is meaningful and lets it be inferred that there is no adverse order against the applicant. No witness from public or police has been cited and only it is the S.H.O. who has submitted the report and has made statement before the S.D.M. It is also noteworthy that after the order, dated 11‑10‑1996 passed by my learned brother whereby earlier similar proceedings were quashed, no specific instance constituting the habit has been cited to attract the provisions of section 14 of the Act (ibid). Accordingly, in my humble opinion no case is made out against the applicant under section 14 of the Act requiring him to furnish bond of good behaviour. Accordingly, it is tit case for quashment of the proceedings. I accordingly, allow this application and quash the proceedings. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./Y‑11/K Proceedings quashed.