' This is an application in revision of an order dated 26-8.1975, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Tribunal, Bahawalnagar, declaring the petitioner to be a goonda under section 13 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 and ordering him to furnish a security in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty th missal only) with two sureties I I the like amount, for being of a good behaviour for a period of two years, and also restricting his movements to the limits of Bahawalnagar, saddar Police Station and directing him to report to the S. H.
0. Of that Police Station every Mom ay. The order had been pissed on the admission of the petitioner of the correctness of the allegations against him, The petitioner did not appeal but has preferred to challenge the order by way of revision.
2. The record shows that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a report submitted by the police containing three specified cases, in which the petitioner had been either suspected or involved. These cases are : (11 No. 14 of 1965 under section 380, P. P. C. Reported by Suleman
(ii) No. 140 of 1965 under section 457/411/380, P. P. C. Reported by Muhammad Yar ; and
(lit) No 523 of 1975 under section 366, P. P. C. Reported by Mst Elahi Sein.
' The witnesses cited in the challan are Suleman and Muhammad Yar, respective complainants in the first two cases and Ghulam Qadir, A. S. I. The Investigating Officer in these two cases, and Aman Allah Khan S. I. The Investigating Officer in the third-mentioned case. It, however, appears that the petitioner had earlier been proceeded against under the Ordinance on the basis of the first two cases, but as the complainants therein I e. Suleman and Muhammad Yar had not supported the prosecution, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 11-8-1973 (Annexure 'E') had discharged him. The petitioner had also been discharged by the relevant Tribunal on 7-10-1975 in the third-mentioned case under section 366, P. P. C. (Annexure 'F'). This being so, the prosecution could not initiate proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the said allegations. The proceeding was thus illegal from the very beginning.
3. As required by section 6 of the Ordinance, the petitioner on his appearance before the Tribunal was to be supplied with a copy of the information lodged against him. That information, as required by section 5, subsection (2) is to contain-
(a) the practices with which the person complained against is charged ;
(b) instances, with details of time and place of such practices.
' The notice read over to the petitioner, however, is in a very general term and contains no instances. It was upon this notice that the petitioner had admitted the correctness of the allegations. The notice apparently did not meet the requirement of law and as such the admission, if any, of th petitiorer recorded by the Tribunal has no value. It is to be noted that no evidence had been led by the prosecution.
4. I find that on the basis of the material on record, the proceedin against the petitioner had been absolutely unwarranted and that the Tribunals too, had conducted the proceeding in a very casual manner and had not even examined the background of the allegations laid before it. I, therefore, accept This revision under section 19 of the Ordinance, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and discharge the petitioner from his bond.