The detenu in this case is Khushi Muhammad. He was declared a goonda by.the order of Ch. Iqbal Ahmad Mahmood, Additional District Magistrate, dated 31st of August 1968 in his capacity as District Tribunal and was called upon to furnish a security bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. He was also ordered to restrict his movements in the area of Model Town 'A' and Dhobi Ghat, Lyallpur. A further direction was given to him that he should report to the S. H. O., Police Station Kotwali Lyallpur on every Monday and Thursday. The period of one year expired on 23rd of August 1969.
2. It appears that during the period from 1st of January 1971 seven cases were registered against the detenu in Police Station Gulberg and Kotwali of Lyallpur. They covered apart from a case under the Excise Act. Various offences under the Penal Code including a case under section 307, P. P. C. and another case under section 394, P. P. C. Information was laid by the S. 11. O. with the Tribunal which is presided over by Mr. Zulqarnain, Additional District Magistrate respondent No. 2 in this case and a prayer was made that the detenu be declared a goonda.
3. The short point raised by Khawaja Sultan Ahmed the learned counsel who appears in support of this petition is that once a person has been declared a Goonda proceedings cannot be re-initiated to declare him a Goonda again. It is his contention that after a person is declared as a Goonda he is visited by certain disabilities as a citizen and is to be kept under surveillance but there is no provision of law for declaring a person a Goonda for more than one time. In order to supplement the above submission the learned counsel has referred to the various provision of the Goondas Ordinance of 1959 hereinafter called the Ordinance and the rules framed thereunder. Under rule 6 of the Rules referred to above the history sheet of a person declared to be a Goonda is opened by the officer inchargc of the police station concerned and his name has to be entered in the surveillance register of the police station. The Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent of Police or the Inspector of Police inchargc of the area in which a Goonda resides has to record quarterly reports with regard to sources of his earning, his associates and his general conduct. The Gngerprints and specimen signatures of the Goonda have also to be obtained. Under Rule 8 the records of the proceedings before the tribunal are to be scaled and consigned to the judicial record room where they shall remain for a period of fifty years or till the death of the Goonda, whichever event is earlier. The history sheet of u Goonda under sub-rule (4) of rule 8 is to be kept for a period of ten years. The list of the Goondas is to form a permanent record. It is further pointed out that a further disability that Goonda incure is the imposition of enhanced punishment for commission of certain offences under section 21-A of the Ordinance read with the first Schedule.
4. In support of his submission the learned counsel relies on A1st. Kaniz Fatima alias Thalledarni v.
The Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 others (1).
The learned Assistant Advocate-General has not seriously questioned the contention of (lie learned counsel which is mainly based on the case of Mst. Kaniz Fatima referred to above. I can do no better than to quote para. 8 of the judgment which is as under:-- "We have gone throughout the provisions of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 with the help of the learned counsel appearing for either side and find great force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. There is only one section in the Ordinance which deals with declaration of Goondas and that is section 13. The power of the Tribunal is to declare a person as Goonda and to direct his name be publically notified in the prescribed manner, and be placed on the prescribed list of Goondas if the Tribunal is satisfied as a result of an enquiry held under this Ordinance that the person complained against indulges in one of the acts mentioned in the section itself. The net result of the satisfaction of the tribunal is that a person is declared a Goonda." Once such a declaration is made and so long as it remains in force there could be no justification or the presentation of another application for his being declared a Goonda all over again. We have already seen that by virtue of section 25 of the Ordinance he remains to be a Goonda unless his name is ordered to be removed from the lists of such persons on an application made to the Tribunal itself. In the present case it is admitted that no such application has ever been made and therefore the petitioner does admittedly continue to be a Goonda. We have not been able to find any basis or jurisdiction for a second application for a declaration under section 15 during the subsistence of the first declaration."
I respectfully agree with the above observations of tlieit Lordships that the proceedings against a person who has been once declared a Goonda cannot be received for the purpose of declaring him a Goonda twice.
5. The result is that the petition succeeds and the detention of the detenu is declared to be illegal.
He shall be set free if he is not required to be lawfully detained in some other case. .