| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3004 1971 SLD 3004 = 1971 PCRLJ 6 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Petition No. 305 of 1969, decided on 26th May 1970.
Presented By: Ghulam Safdar Shah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
S. Nasiruddin for Petitioner. Kazi Akhtar Ahmad, Addl. A.-G. with S. M: Noorul Hassan for
Respondent.
Petition No. 305 of 1969, decided on 26th May 1970.
Presented By: Ghulam Safdar Shah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
S. Nasiruddin for Petitioner. Kazi Akhtar Ahmad, Addl. A.-G. with S. M: Noorul Hassan for
Respondent.
SIKANDAR SHAH-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE TRIBUNAL AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARACHI-Respondent
Law: Punjab Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959
Section: 29
Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act (XXIX of 1952) S. 12 (2), (ix), (x), (xi) & (xii) read with West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, (XXXV of 1959), S. 29, Sched. [as amended by West Pakistan Control of Goondas (Amendment) Ordinance (XI of 1968)] and West Pakistan General Clauses Act (VI of 1956), S. 4--Proceedings commenced and pending under Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, 1952 prior to passing of West Pakistan Control of Goondas (Amendment) Ordinance, 1968-Cannot come to an end Proceedings deemed to have continued by virtue of S. 4 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1966. Date of hearing; 14th May 1970. JUDGMENT 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 two years. 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order firstly that it is based on no evidence; secondly that it is void for having been passed after the Act was repealed on 30-10-1968 by Ordinance XI of 1968 ; thirdly that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not relatable to the purposes of the Act fourthly that the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. 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…