' This is a revision under section 19 of West Pakistan Control of Goondas Act, 1959 against the order dated 13th October, 1981 of Assistant Commissioner/Chairman, Tribunal Ahmadpur East declaring Ghulam Qadir son of Niaz Ali as a a goonda under section 13/14 of the said Ordinance requiring him to furnish a bond with 2 sureties with Rs, 50,000 each for a period of 2 years from the date of said orders, further restricting his movement within area of Municipal Committee, Ahmadpur East and directing him to report at the Police Station Ahmadpur East daily at 6 p. In. The appeal filed by Ghulam Qadir was dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur, on 30th November, 1981.
2. Some shopkeepers of Ahmadpur East sent 'an 'application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur in 1975 alleging that the petitioner purchased articles from them and refused to pay prices threatening the shopkeepers to involve them in criminal cases at various far of places. The application was sent to E. A. C. Ahmadpur East who submitted his report after making enquiries in the absence of the petitioner. That report dated 24th September, 1975 was then forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahwalpur, P. S. S. P. For opinion and was then sent to the S. H.
0. Ahmadpur East for a complaint under section 5 of West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959. It was on 25th October, 1975 that the S. H.
0. Laid information directly to the Assistant Commissioner Ahmadpur East/Chairman, Tribunal against the petitioner under sections 13 and 14 of the said Ordinance to the effect that the petitioner was in the habit of taking food from the hotels free of costs and when charges were demanded from him petitioner threatened the shopkeepers to institute false cases against them in far-flung cities like Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkar, that the petitioner used to take with him two or three persons of bad repute to abduct women who were later returned by the petitioner on payment of money, and that the petitioner had no means of livelihood. This information under section 5 of the Ordinance was submitted by the S H.
0. Directly without getting it approved/scrutinized by his superior officers and the Prosecution Breach. It was sent by him to the Court of Magistrate with Section 30 powers Ahmadpur East on 26th October, 1976 who after registering it summoned the petitioner as accused on the same day for 19th December, 1976. It was on 16th November, 1977 that the Tribunal gave notice to the petitioner under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking the petitioner to file bond for Rs, 50,000 for a period of one year pending final decision and trial of the petitioner was thus commenced. It took almost 4 years to conclude trial of petitioner on 13th October, 1981 when final impugned order was passed by the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the information under section 5 of Ordinance was sent to a Magistrate with Section 30 powers who took cognizance of the case and summoned the petitioner without jurisdiction and the information had been so sent by the S. H.
0. Directly without its be forwarded by the competent Police Officer under the Police Rules. Learned counsel has then submitted that the information did not contain statement of practices with which the petitioner was changed and instance with details of time and place in violation of the provisions contained in section 5 (2) (a) and (b) of the Ordinance. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Enquiry Officer who made preliminary enquiry and the S. H.
0. Who laid the opinion were not examined by the learned Tribunal. In his submission the notice given to the petitioner did not specify allegations to enable petitioner to defend because the notice was general and vague and that although the notice was for a period of one year, final impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal against the petitioner binding him down for two years.
Learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration atleast 4 witnesses who did not support the case of the Police and 10 witnesses examined by the petitioner. Lastly learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not a previous convict and was doing brick-kiln business in Hyderabad but Police falsely involved the petitioner because he refused to become a witness for the prosecution in F. I. R. No, 239 of 1975 against the politician accused of offence under the Defence of Pakistan Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the State and for the shopkeeper-applicants before the Tribunal have submitted that the impugned orders be upheld. I their submissions proceedings against the petitioner were preventive in nature, that as many as 18 prosecution witnesses supported the information against the petitioner, that there is concurrent findings of facts of two Courts below, that even successive orders of acquittal have been held to serve the purpose and conviction of petitioner is not necessary to declared him Goonda under the Ordinance, that the grounds urged before this Court were not taken in the grounds of revision and that the scope of revision is circumscribed due to which this Court should not interfere with the impugned orders.
5. Petitioner in this case was declared goonda because the learned Tribunal found his case was covered by clause (p) of section 13 of the Ordinance. The information laid before the learned Tribunal under section 5 of the Ordinance did not disclose instance with details of date, time and place of the practices for which petitioner had been charged. Before the trial commenced, petitioner had not been supplied with requisite copies of the information against him containing the detail to enable him to properly defend himself. The requirement contained in section 5 (a) and
(b) of the Ordinance was not complied with. The shopkeepers who were examined by the learned Tribunal did not specify the date and time of the instances. The learned Tribunal took judicial notice of some private complaints alleged to have been filed by the petitioner but not a single person accused in those private complaints was examined by the learned Tribunal to prove that petitioner had in fact filed the private complaints in Courts which were found false and frivolous. Thus the information laid before the learned Tribunal and the evidence led before it was of general nature and was vague. Therefore, the Tribunal acted illegally in the exercise of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order against the petitioner. The order declaring the petitioner a goonda under section 13 being illegal, the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction in law to case the order under section 14 of the Ordinance requiring the petitioner to furnish a bond and in restricting his movement and giving him directions to report at the Police Station.
6. I find that on the basis of material available on record the proceedings taken against the petitioner were not warranted by law and the Tribunal had conducted the proceedings illegally without even examining the relevant evidence to prove the allegations against the petitioner. I, therefore, accept this revision, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and discharge the petitioner from his bond.