Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision Application No. 34 of 1969, decided on 17th December 1969.

--S. 12 (2)- Criminal trial Principle of criminal jurisprudence; "Every accused person is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt"-Mere involvement of accused in other criminal cases-Cannot be relied upon as conclusive proof of fact that he had "taken part in those cases"-Tribunal proceeding to condemn petitioner without positively making up its mind as regards veracity or otherwise of evidence produced by prosecution and defence and declaring him a disorderly person merely because Mohalla people had complaints against him and he was arrested and tried in several cases registered against him-Tribunal, held, acted illegally in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction-Order set aside.

G. A. Brohi for Applicant.

Nooruddin Sarki for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th December 1969.

This revision application under section 16 of the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises in the following circumstances.

A complaint was filed against the petitioner by Dy. S. P. West 11, Karachi alleging inter alia that he dealt in narcotics and was a bully who caused fear and alarm in the area by assaulting and threatening the general public in open public places. As a result of these allegations, an enquiry was held under section 12(2) of the Act, and the learned District Magistrate and Tribunal by his order dated 14-12-1968, declared the petitioner to be a dangerous and disorderly person under the Act. The learned District Magistrate and Tribunal referred to the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution as well as that evidence which was recorded at the instance of the petitioner. He, however, could not make up his mind as to which of them was speaking the truth and who amongst them were false witnesses. The learned District Magistrate and Tribunal thereafter summed up his conclusions thus: -

"On discussing the evidence I come to the conclusion that although the enmity of the respondent with certain P. Ws. is proved in the evidence, yet Mohalla people have complaints against him for selling charas and for his disorderly behaviour. The respondent ought to create a good atmosphere and congenial impression in his area by his behaviour and actions. There is no previous conviction against him as yet. The registration of the cases against him, his arrest in these cases and facing trial in the Court on the alleged charges is a fact to hold that he has taken part in these cases. I hold him to be disorderly person, creating trouble in the area and causing nuisance in the locality."

3. Earlier 'in his order the learned District Magistrate has mentioned instance of eight cases in which the petitioner was involved as an accused person. It is stated by Mr. G. A. Brohi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been either acquitted or discharged in all those eight cases. This factual position is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State. I, therefore, fail to see as to how the mere involvement of the petitioner in these cases could have been relied upon by the learned Tribunal as a conclusive proof of the fact that he had "taken part in those cases". It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that every accused person is presumed to be innocent suntil his guilt has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The learned District Magistrate and Tribunal has violated this principle in assuming to the contrary. Nor has the learned District Magistrate and Tribunal considered the evidence. Even if he had believed a single witness for the prosecution and relied on his testimony, I would have been loath to interfere with his order in the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The order of the learned District Magistrate and' Tribunal, however, shows that he has not expressed any opinion whether he believed any of prosecution witnesses. Nor has he said anything to show that he doubted the veracity of the evidence of any of the defence witnesses in the slightest degree.

4. In view .of what has been said above I consider that the learned District Magistrate and Tribunal acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally. This revision petition is consequently allowed and the order dated 14-12-1968 of the District Magistrate and Tribunal is set aside. This order shall not, however, preclude, the authorities from taking any further proceedings in the matter if they consider the same to be necessary.

Revision allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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