Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 1076 of 1975, decided on 23rd September 1976

--- Ss. 5, 6, 13 & 19---Proceedings initiated over again on basis of allegations already forming an5ject-matter in an earlier proceeding, but found incorrect by Tribunal and petitioner discharged-Proceedings illegal ab. initio-Order under S. 13 of Ordinance based only on admission of petitioner of allegations mentioned in notice but notice couched in a general term and containing no specific instances of practices complained against-Admission of petitioner alone, if any, held, (if no value-Order set aside, in circumstances.-Admission].

S. M. Idrees for Petitioner.

Muhammad Abu-ul-Fateh for the State.

Date of hearing; 23rd September 1976.

This is an application in revision of an order dates 26-8-1975, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Tribunal, Bahawalnagar, declaring the petitioner to be a goonda under section 13 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 and ordering him to furnish a security in the sum of Rs. 20.000 (rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties is the like amount, for being of a good behaviour for a period of two years, and also restricting his movements to the limits of Bahawalnagar, Saddar Police Station and directing him to report to the S. H. O. of that Police Station every Monday. The order had been passed on the admission of the petitioner of the correctness of the allegations against him. The petitioner did not appeal but has preferred to challenge the order by way of revision.

2. The record shows that the proceedings ware initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a report submitted by the police containing three specified cases, in which the petitioner had been either suspected or involved. These cases are:

(i) No. 14 of 1965 under section 380, P. P. C. reported by Suleman

(ii) No. 140 of 1965 under section 457/41/380, P. P. C. reported by Muhammad Yar; and

(iii) No 523 of 1975 under section 366, P. P. C. reported by Mst. Elahi Sein.

The witnesses cited in the challan ace Suleman and Muhammad Yar, respective complainants in the first two cases and Ghulam Qadir, A. S. I. the Investigating Officer in these two cases, and Aman Allah Khan S. I. the Investigating Officer in the third-mentioned case. It, however, appears that the petitioner had earlier been proceeded against under the Ordinance on the basis of the first two cases, but as the complainant therein i e. Suleman and Muhammad Yar had not supported the prosecution, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 11-8-1973 (Annexure 'E') had discharged hire. The petitioner had also been discharged by the relevant Tribunal on 7-10-1975 in the third-mentioned case under section 366, P. P. C. (Annexure 'F'). This being so, the prosecution could not initiate proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the said allegations. The proceeding was thus illegal from the very beginning.

3. As required by section 6 of the Ordinance, the petitioner on his appearance before the Tribunal was to be supplied with a copy of the information lodged against him. That information, as required by section 5, subsection (2) is to contain: -

(a) the practices with which the person complained against is charged ;

(b) instances, with details of time and place of such practices.

The notice read over to the petitioner, however, is in a very general term and contains no instances. It was upon this notice that the petitioner had admitted the correctness of the allegations. The notice apparently did not meet the requirement of law and as such the admission, if any, of the petitioner recorded by the Tribunal has no value. It is to be noted that no evidence had been led by the prosecution.

4. I find that on the basis of the material on record, the proceeding against the petitioner had been absolutely unwarranted and that the Tribunal, too, had conducted the proceeding in a very casual manner and had not even examined the background of the allegations laid before it. I therefore, accept this revision under section 19 of the Ordinance, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and discharge the petitioner from his bond.

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.