1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.---This is an application under sec--tion 3 of the Contempt of Court Act read with section 123 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan against the respondents. The case of the petitioners is that their history-- sheets were opened by respondent No. 2 on the advice of respondent No. 3. The order passed for the opening of the history sheets was challenged in the High Court of West Pakistan in Writ Petition No. 300/60 which dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on the 1st June 1961. The petitioners challenged this order in P. S. L.
2. A. No. 230 of 1961 in this Court. Leave was granted to the petitioners and the appeal came up for hearing before this Court on the 12th February 1963. On that date the learned Additional Advocate- General submitted that the impugned history-sheets have been closed. In view of this statement the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous.
3. The petitioners' allegation is that that they were under the impression that their history-sheets had been closed but petitioner No. 3 was arrested by the police under sections 13 and 14 of the Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959. In that case a bail applica--tion was moved oil the 11th June 1968 before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Lahore, who is acting as a Tribunal under this: Ordinance. This application was resisted by the Police and it was urged on behalf of the State that the history-sheets of the petitioners have not been closed and no such entry has been made in the history-sheets. It is alleged that the history-sheets were examined by the learned prosecuting inspector and it was found that the history-sheets were never closed. On these allegations the petitioners pray that action be taken against the respondents for contempt of Court.
4. This mater came up for hearing in stay proceedings. A notice, was issued to the learned Additional Advocate-General. He stated that the history-sheets of all the petitioners were closed on the 26th August 1961. Thereafter, four criminal cases were registered against petitioner No. 3 under sections 406, 420, 465 and 468, P. P. C. His history-sheet was, therefore, reopened on the 19th February 1968, under the orders of S. S. P., Lahore.
5. This case came up for hearing on the 20th November 1970, when the learned Additional Advocate- General was directed to file an affidavit of the official concerned about the closing of the history- sheets. In pursuance of this order an affidavit has been filed by Syed Mohammad Yousaf Shirazi who was D. S. P. Of city of Lahore in 1961. He has stated on oath that the history --sheet of Mr. Arshad Naeem was placed before him with the recommendations of Mr. Naseer Ahmad the then S. H. O.
6. Police Station Naulakha, that no criminal activities of this person has come to his notice for sometime back. Thereupon, he passed the order on the. 26th August 1961 that his history-sheet be closed. In support of this he has referred to the order transfer to personal file" in the margin of entry No. 23 of the history-sheet. He has further stated on oath that as the history sheet of Mr. Arshad Naeem was closed on the 26th August 1961 no entry in it was made about his activities till October 1967. The next entry at serial No. 24 in his personal tile was made when he was arrested in a case under sections 406/420/465/468/471, P. P. C. Police Station Qilla Gujjar Singh on 2nd October 1967.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that a perusal of the register, of history- sheets will show that no order was passed to close the history-sheet of the petitioners. According to him, the order "transfer to personal file" in the margin of entry No. 23 does not mean that the history-sheets of the petitioners were closed. Mr. Dilawar Mahmood, learned Addi--tional Advocate-General, has referred us to rule 23.13 of the Punjab Police Rules (Vol. III) to show that the personal file a only meant for guiding the superior officers as to whether a history-sheet should be opened or not. According to him, the circumstance that no entries were made in the ho-story- sheets from 26th August 1961 to 2nd October 1967 clearly indicates that their history-sheets were closed.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the history-sheets of the petitioners were closed and the order of the D. S. P. In the margin of entry No. 23 of the history-sheet "transfer to personal file" meant that the history----sheets of the petitioners were closed. It cannot, therefore, be said that the respondents have committed any contempt of this Court. No action, therefore, can be taken against them. The petition is dismissed.