1. By this application the orders passed by the Commissioner, Karachi Division, dated 2-7-1976 and dated 18-6-76 are sought to be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under section 22, clause (2) of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The Applicant had moved the Commissioner under section 22, clause (1) of the said Sind Act, to call for the record of the proceedings of the case initiated by the Assistant Commissioner and S. D. M., City Karachi against the applicant under section 14, clause (iii) of the Act. The Commissioner had declined to quash the proceedings and had only granted bail to the applicant.
2. The above-referred proceedings had commenced upon a report made by the S. H. O. Mithadar Police Station on 8-6-76. The Magistrate acting as the Tribunal took cognizance of the case. The allegations against the applicant made in the report of the S. H. O. Were that he had no means of living except by gambling, threatening the public and by such threats taking free meals in hotels, generally giving threats of dire consequences, with the result that he was a danger to the general public on account of his nefarious activities. He had been convicted in several cases and seven of such cases mentioned in the report fell under various sections, e.g. 379, P. P. C., 323, 504, 506, P. P. C., 13/D, Arms Ordinance and offences under the gambling laws. The Magistrate had also issued a show-cause notice as to why the applicant should not execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour for a period of 3 years, with 2 sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each with a further condition that the sureties should be solvent and be men of means and also residing within 5 miles of the said locality.
3. The Commissioner of Karachi in his order dated 18-5-1976 held that no evidence had been produced to warrant any action under section 8(3) (a) or under section 8(3) (b) of the Act and therefore ordered that applicant may simply produce a surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000. Obviously this surety was not in terms of the Show-Cause Notice issued by the Tribunal and admittedly the applicant has continued to be on bail thereafter. Subsequent to this while deciding the main Revision Application on 2-7-1976 the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the Tribunal had not committed any error in taking cognizance of the case which in his view complied with the requirements of section 4 of the Act. He therefore disposed of the Revision Application in terms of his above-stated views and returned the Record and Proceedings of the enquiry to the Tribunal for disposal according to law.
4. I have persued the contents of the report -under section 4 of the Act on which cognizance was taken, and which contained all the allegations against the applicant which have been stated above. There is a list of cases, which had ended in the conviction of the applicant under various/ Acts, besides certain complaints were made against the applicant which had been registered as non-cognizable cases. There is also list of 10 witnesses some of whom are police officers, and .The evidence intend to be given by these witnesses is also given in a nutshell against the name of each witness. Apart from these, two witnesses have separately cited as witnesses of the reputation of the applicant. In view of this it cannot be said that the report suffered from any inherent legal defect the same is in compliance of section 4 of the Act. The finding of the Commissioner on ibis point appears to be absolutely correct. Learn counsel appearing for the applicant has not shown how the report is defective in law so as to conclude that the act of cognizance taken by the Tribunal was wrong. Mr. Nooruddin Sarki learned counsel appearing for the State also submitted that the allegations had nexus with the particular of the personal acts attributed to the applicant and that were mentioned in the complaint. Applicant did not enjoy a good reputation and w alleged to be a habitual offender. Witnesses of reputation were persons from the public, whether the allegations were proved to be correct o not was the subject of the enquiry which still as pending. At this stag the attack was only on the act of the Tribunal in taking cognizance. That factor had been properly con6idered by the Commissioner.
5. The Revisional powers of the High Court under the Act are defined under section 22, clause (2) which reads as follows:- "(2) High Court may call for and examine the record of any cast before Commissioner, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality of any order passed by the Commissioner under subsection (a. Of section 21 and pass any orders as it deems fit."
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has not shown how the order of the Commissioner passed in Revision are not legal. This application has no merits and as such is dismissed.