' The applicant has been declared to be a goonda within the meaning of section 13 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance on the ground that he deals in narcotics like charas and desi liquor. He has been directed to execute a bond in the sum of Rs, 5,000 with two sureties in like amount each for maintaining good behaviour for a period of 2 years and his movements have been restricted to Matta Town within the Jurisdiction of Thatta Police Station. The applicant being aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division. The said appeal was, however, dismissed on the ground that there was evidence of the S. H.
0. Against the appellant and S. H.
0. Was a responsible police officer ; that it was for the appellant to satisfactorily explain why the S. H. O. Was implicating him. The revision application has accordingly been filed against the order of dismissal of the appeal.
2. The charges against the applicant were that he was indulging in criminal activities and dealing in charas and deli wine ; that he was habitually corrupting boys by initiating them into the habit of drinking and taking chants in open ; that he procured women of bad character through these boys ; that there were complaints against him and he had been challaned in Abkari cases. The report was filed by S. H. O., Thatta Police Station in the Court of the Tribunal and D. M., Thatta. In this report four witnesses including the complainant had been cited. However, only the S. H.
0. Has given evidence against the applicant while the other witness Loung has been cross- examined as hostile witness as he declined to implicate the applicant. The remaining two witnesses have been given up.
3. The S. H.
0. Has deposed that the applicant had been prosecuted on 10th February 1959, for offences under sections 332, 225/147 etc. ; that since that date enquiries were being made regarding his activities I that he took over as S. H.
0., Thatta on 1st April 1974. The S. H.
0. Has not been able to name the Mohallah where the respondent resides nor has hei recorded the statements of the residents of the applicant. There is no direct evidence of the S. H.
0. To establish any of the charges against the applicant. The evidence of the S. H.
0. Is vague and of general cbarac ter and there are no specific instances regarding the, activities of the applicant nor have any cues been cited in which the applicant was sen up. The evidence of the S. H. O. Does not stand colloborated by any oral or documentary evidence. Such evidence cannot, therefore, be made the basis of final order under section 13 of the Goondas Ordinance.
4. In the result the revision application is allowed and the impugned order declaring the applicant to be a goonda is hereby set aside. The applicant is on bail, his bail bond is hereby discharged.