Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 163 of 1967, decided on 5th August 1968.

Ss. 12 (2) (ix), (x), (xiii) & 16‑‑Petitioner declared a dangerous disorderly person and ordered to be externed from District by Tribunal on allegations of his being a history sheeter, a previous convict, dealing in char as and opium and haring no ostensible means of livelihood‑--Evidence on record showing that petitioner had been acquitted in all previous cases and had a hotel‑‑Tribunal, held, acted in exercise of its Jurisdiction illegally as no Justification for ordering externment of petitioner exited, in circumstances of case.

Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin for Petitioner.

Manzoor Hussain for the State.

Date of hearing: 5^th August 1968.

Arsala Khan, petitioner, was declared a dangerous disorderly person under section 12 (2) (ix) (x) and (xii) of Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, (XXXIX of 1952) by the Tribunal and the District Magistrate, Karachi. It was directed that lie should furnish his finger prints and photograph to the Police and be externed from Karachi District. Against that order the petitioner has preferred this revision under section 16 of the aforementioned Act.

2. The main allegations against the petitioner are that he is not only a history sheeter, but is also a previous convict and deals in charas and opium and has no ostensible means of livelihood. In support of the allegations the prosecution examined a number of witnesses who stated that the petitioner had engaged boys and through them used to sell charas and opium etc.

3. The petitioner denied the allegations stated that he was running a hotel. He also examined three witnesses in his defence, who supported him. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in all the previous cases the petitioner had been acquitted, which is evident from the certified copies of the judgments filed in this case. Even the learned counsel for the State does not deny this fact. It has also not been denied that the petitioner has a hotel and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has no ostensible means of livelihood. In a previous order passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 1967 it is mentioned that the learned Assistant Advocate -General, who had himself appeared, could not deny the above fact. Under these circumstances the Tribunal acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally because there was no justification whatever to pass the order externing the petitioner from Karachi District. I, accordingly, accept the petition and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal against the petitioner.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.