1. GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This petition under Article 98 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Karachi/Tribunal dated 11-12-1968 by which the petitioner was declared a dangerous disorderly person under section 12 (2) (ix), (x), (xi) and (xii) of the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and extended from the District of Karachi for a period of to years.
2. Syed Nasiruddin the learned counsel for the petitioner urged five grounds against the impugned order firstly that it is based on no evidence; secondly that it is void for having been passed after the Act was repealed on 30-10-1968 by Ordinance XI of 1968 ; thirdly that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not relatable to the purposes of the Act fourthly that the peti--tioner had been earlier declared as dangerous and disorderly -person and therefore he could not again be proceeded against under the Act and fifthly that the impugned order cannot be said to be a judicial pronouncement inasmuch as the Tribunal has expressed no opinion if it was satisfied with the prosecution evidence.
3. We would deal with each one of these contentions separately. But before-doing so it would be proper to reproduce the relevant provisions of section.12 of the Act under which the impugned order was passed against the petitioner- "12.-(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) If the Tribunal is satisfied, as a result of enquiry as aforesaid, that any person complained against :-
(ix) keeps a drinking or gambling den, or place where opium or other intoxicating drugs are smoked or otherwise consumed, or makes a livelihood out of such den or place by acting as a tout or otherwise, howsoever, or engages in the illicit manufac--ture or sale of liquor or opium or other intoxicating drugs ; or
(x) behaves riotously in public by entering into affrays, of otherwise howsoever ; or
(xi) causes fear or alarm to the public or any section or member thereof, by issuing threats verbally or in writing, or by making, publishing or circulating false statements, rumours or reports ; or
(xii) is a bully, who assaults or threatens persons with the object of causing fear or alarm, or to compel them to at or not to at in a manner in which they are not bound to at, or its, the case may be, are entitled to at ; or it shall declare that such person is a. Dangerous disorderly person, and shall direct that his name be publicly notified in the prescribed manner, and be placed on the prescribed list of dangerous disorderly persons."
4. The admitted position is that the prosecution examined 11 witnesses before the Tribunal and the petitioner produced to witnesses in defence. All witnesses of the prosecution, some of whom were police officials, stated in their evidence 'that the petitioner was habitually tracking in narcotics and on many occasions apprehended and the drugs recovered from his person. They further stated that he is a quarrelsome person who frequently fights in public and creates alarm. The police witnesses further stated that on many occasions the petitioner was challaned in Court and convicted for trafficking in drugs. Not only this but Ghulam Hussain, S. H. O., Brigade Police Station and Aleem Khan, Police Inspector, Soldier Bazar deposed that the petitioner was the history sheeter of Bundle "A" in the Soldier Bazar Police Station. Another witness of the prosecution namely, Rehmat Ali, A. S. I. P., New Town Police Station deposed that he had received a written complaint against the petitioner from the inhabitants of Patel Para that he was indulging in selling charas and opium to the annoyance of the public of the locality.
5. It was not denied before us that this is what the prosecution witnesses had stated before the Tribunal. If this be 'so then it would be incorrect to contend that there was no evidence in support of the impugned order.
6. The second contention has also not impressed us. It is true that by Ordinance XI of 1968 the Act was repealed with effect from 30-10-1968, but that would not mean that the proceedings which were already pending would come to an end. In fact the proceedings in question would be deemed to have continued by virtue of section 4 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act which in relevant parts reads:- "Where this Act or any other West Pakistan Act repeal shall not . . . . . . Affect any investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty forfei--ture or punishment may be imposed as if the Repealing Act had not been passed."
7. The third contention is also without force. We have already-- referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and by reading it together there is little doubt that it is clearly relatable to the purposes of section 12 of the Act under which the petitioner was tried and found guilty by the Tribunal.
8. The fourth contention is also without force. The learned counsel admitted before us that when the impugned order was passed the earlier order passed against the petitioner had already run its course and was not in existence. If this be so then surely the Tribunal would be empowered to proceed against the peti--tioner under the Act as the charges levelled against him were altogether fresh and had nothing to do with those charges under which he had been earlier found guilty.
9. The last contention of the petitioner is also without merit. By reading the order as a whole it is clear that it was passed after the Tribunal was satisfied with the prosecution evidence. This is clear from the impugned order of the Tribunal in which it is mentioned that "in view of the evidence placed on record, I declare Sikandar Shah son of Hasan Ali Shah resident of Patal Para, Soldier Bazar, Karachi, a dangerous disorderly person".
10. In view of this discussion we find no force in this petition which is dismissed with costs.