Find a Lawyer

Ss. 13 & 14-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Tribunal seized of matter to decide as to whether on facts stated in report action under S. 13/14, West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 was possible against accused-Accused failed to satisfy High Court that proceedings against him were taken mala fide-High Court, held, could not embark on any enquiry to determine truth or falsehood of allegations in report-High Court could not assume discretion which exclusively vested in Tribunal-High Court, therefore, declined to interfere in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction to see whether any action was competent on facts stated in report.

Muhammad Akram Sheikh for Petitioner.

The Station House Officer, P. S. Sahuka, Tehsil Burewala submitted a report to the Tribunal for taking action against the petitioner under sections 13 and 14 of Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 alleging that he is a desparate person, frequently indulges into anti-social activities and is a disorderly person. In order to substantiate the allegations he relied on various reports registered against him at different police stations. The petitioner has moved this petition for a declaration that the proceedings initiated against him being mala fide are without jurisdiction and without lawful authority.

2. It is alleged that the petitioner was acquitted in the cases registered against him in the year 1976 and 1984. On 27-4-1984 he was falsely involved in a case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance on his failure to pay Rs. 20,000 to the S. H. O., P. S. Sahuka demanded as bribe from him. The petitioner apprised the Senior Officers of the situation and submitted an application against the said S. H. O. which greatly annoyed him and he registered three cases against the petitioner in a quick succession. On 28-7-1984 a case under section 162, P. P. C. was registered. On 13-8-1984 a case under sections 148, 354, 452, 149, P. P. C. was registered against him, yet another case under section 379, P. P. C. was registered against him. It is contended that the contents of the report even if accepted to be correct do not call for any action against the petitioner and as such the proceedings are coram non judice.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The cases referred to above do not pertain to P. S. Sabuka only but to other police stations as well. Some of the cases are still pending. Besides this there are two reports against him, one by Hafiz Bashir Ahmad and the other by Mst. Faiz Elahi of indulging in the anti-social activities. The tribunal seized of the matter is to decide the matter as to whether on the facts stated in the report action under sections 13/14 of the Goondas Ordinance is possible against him or not. The High Court cannot embark on a euquiry to determine the truth or falsehood of such allegations because to do so would be to assume discretion which exclusively vests in the Tribunal. I am reluctant to interfere in the exercise of my constitutional jurisdiction to see whether any action is competent on the facts stated in the report because such an examination may prejudice the petitioner if after examining the plea of the petitioner, his petition is dismissed by holding that the facts, would warrant and justify an action under section 13/14 of the Goondas Ordinance. The finding of this Court is bound to influence the Tribunal. Furthermore it is not possible to comment on the criminal cases registered against the petitioner which are yet to be tried by the Courts. For this reason I would refrain from making any comment on the truth or falsehood of the allegations forming the basis of the action against the petitioner and would leave the matter for the decision by the Tribunal. The petitioner has failed to satisfy me that the proceedings against him are taken mala fide.