1. This is a revision application under section 16 of the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, against the order passed by the learned District Magistrate and Tribunal, Karachi under section 12(2) of the Act. The D. S. P. Central (II), Karachi made a complaint before the District Magistrate and the Tribunal for taking action against the applicant tinder the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act. This complaint was received by the learned District Magistrate on 4-5-68. In pursuance of this complaint proceedings were taken against the applicant and several witnesses were examined.
2. The applicant denied the allegations and ascribed his implication due to enmity. He also examined some persons in defence. On the assessment -of the evidence the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant was a disorderly person and, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 26th October 1968, directing that the name of the applicant be notified in the prescribed manner and he be placed on the list of disorderly persons and was released after due admonition.
3. Aggrieved by this, the present revision application was filed.
4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the order of the learned Tribunal was not sustainable on the grounds stated by him and in fact it was a case of no evidence. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to' reproduce the concluding portion of the impugned order which reads as under: "It appears to me that the root cause of the dispute arose after the passing of the resolution by the members of the New Karachi Town Committee No. 1, recommending removal of the stalls and cabins situated round about the bus stops which proved hazardous for traffic accidents. The respondent is Chairman of the Market Union Committee and an action committee of the cabin- holders published pamphlets 'against the passing of the resolution and complaining regarding his handedness and harassm ent of the Union Committee members with the cabin-holders. In consequence thereof trouble started. The police record shows that the respondent has one conviction in 1964 under Gambling Act with fine of Rs. 10 and in another case under section 107/117, Cr. P. C. It was compromised on 11-9-65. The only case pending against him is under section 447, P.
5. P. C. Regarding encroachment on Government land: Of the non-cognizable reports 6 relate to the year of 1965 and one is of 1968, I do not find this material to be sufficient for holding the respondent to be a dangerous person. However, I am con--sidering non-cognizable reports and cases registered against him under section 107/117, Cr. P. C. And under section 447, P. P. C. I do not consider him to be a law-abiding citizen. I, therefore, declare him disorderly person under the K. C.
6. D. P. Act. I direct that his name may be notified in the prescribed manner and be placed on the list of Disorderly Persons. He shall furnish his finger-prints and photograph to the police. Since there is no enough evidence against him, I release him after due admonition.
7. From this order it is plain enough that the learned Tribunal did not rely upon the evidence of the, witnesses who were produced in support of the allegations but he considered the, registration of 7 non-cognizable reports registered at the Police station against the applicant as well as the proceedings which had been taken against him under section 107/ 117, Cr. P. C. And another case under section 447, P. P. C. With regard to the non-cognizable reports it is clear that 6 of the reports related to the year 1965 and there was only one report which pertained to the year 1968. Apparently there was no complaint against the applicant for a period of 3 years. So it cannot be said that the applicant indulged in those objectionable activities for all these years. In fact his behaviour after 1965 was not open to any exception and he behaved like a peaceful citizen. Consequently the cases of 1965 could not in law be taken into consideration. The allegations on which the proceed-- ings were taken against the applicant were covered by clauses 10, 11 and 12 of section 12(2) of the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act. Reading this provision it would be apparent that this implied that the applicant was habitually indulging in those objectionable activities. In this connection it may be stated that "habitually" must be taken to mean repeatedly or persistently, and therefore, habit implied a tendency resulting from the frequent proof by adducing evidence of the commission of a number of similar acts. Since for these three years there was no complaint against the applicant to bring the case within the mischief of the aforesaid provision of law it cannot be said that he habitually indulged in the commission of those offences. Thus there remained only the complaint registered in 1968. This pertained to an incident which had happened on 2-5-68 the report of which was lodged by Shah Zaman witness under sections 323 and 504, P. P.
8. C. On the allegation that he. Was abused and slapped by the applicant. It is pertinent to note that the complaint which was made by the D. S. P. For taking action against the applicant under the Karachi Disorderly Persons Act is also dated 2-5-68 and the submission note to the Tribunal is dated 3-5-68 and it was received by the Tribunal on 4-5-68. Thus it was on the basis o this solitary complaint that the proceedings were taken against the applicant. In order to establish habit a stray at or to are not enough in proof of it. There must be sufficient instances in order to establish the habit to bring it within the ,mischief of the aforesaid clause of the section 12.
9. Then comes the proceedings under sections 107 and 110, Cr. P. C. But this also pertains. To the year 1965 and it was also compromised as is evident from- the portion of the impugned order reproduced above: Consequently this also could not form the basic for the impugned action. Lastly, the learned. Tribunal relied upon` the case which was pending under, section 447, P. P. C. According to the allegation the applicant encroached upon the Government land in.1967 and a report for that, was lodged by the Administrative Officer, North Karachi Township in December 1967. That case is still sub judice and it cannot be said that the applicant is guilty of that offence. In this connection I would observation made by Muhammad Hayat like to refer to the Junejo, J: in the case of Rasul Bux alias Dubai v. District Magistrate and Tribunal, Karachi (1970 P Cr. L J 935) which was to the effect that: "it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused person is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been established beyond any reasonable doubt."
10. It was also observed that mere involvement in other cases which resulted in acquittal could not be treated as conclusive proof of the fact that the person- proceeded against had taken part in those cases.
11. In the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the learned Tribunal had acted in the exercise of its jurisdictions, illegally and the impugned' order is not sustainable, on the grounds relied upon by the learned Tribunal. I, therefore, allow this application and direct that the error be, rectified by the learned Tribunal in passing suitable order in the light of the above observations.