| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLD 3005 = 1980 CLC 39 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 37 of 1978, decided on 27th November 1979.
Presented By: Shah Nawaz Khan and Muhammad Sardar Khan, JJ
Funk and Wagnails on New Standard Dictionary (English) ref. Arshad Mahmood Lodhi for Petitioner. Mian Shaukat Hussain for
Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 37 of 1978, decided on 27th November 1979.
Presented By: Shah Nawaz Khan and Muhammad Sardar Khan, JJ
Funk and Wagnails on New Standard Dictionary (English) ref. Arshad Mahmood Lodhi for Petitioner. Mian Shaukat Hussain for
Respondent.
ASHIQ HUSSAIN-Petitioner
VERSUS
STATION COMMANDER, NOWSHERA CANTT. Respondent
Law: Cantonments Act (II of 1924)
Section: 235, 236, 237, 240
(a) Cantonments Act (11 of 1924) Ss. 235, 236 & 237-Nature of inquiry-Natural justice, principle of-Notice under S. 235 duly served on petitioner but evidence in support of complaint not recorded in presence of petitioner-File of case also not containing statements of witnesses except one of peti tioner-Question of nature of inquiry however left to Officer Command ing and person complained against given no right to insist on produc tion of such evidence as he desires to produce-Station Commander not bound to follow any particular procedure and he has merely to be satisfied-No illegality hence committed in not examining witnesses desired by petitioner to be produced-Where, however, Station Com mander examines some witnesses ultimately resulting in order requiring a person to remove himself from Cantonment area within a specified time, such person, held, possessed of right to insist on requirement of his presence at time of examination of witnesses and to be allowed to cross-examine them.-[Natural justice, principles of-Cross-exami nation]. (b) Cantonments Act (11 of 1924) S. 237 read with Ss. 235, 236 & 240-Externment from Cantonment area-Word "prostitute" not defined in Act-To be given ordinary dictionary meaning, viz., person indulging in lewdness, especially for hire-Person before taking of any action against him under S. 237 to be shown to be a prostitute or having been convicted under S. 236 or being guilty of abetment of such offence-No allegation against petitioner of his being a prostitute and only allegation made being of his using his house as a brothel-Nor any allegation made against petitioner of his having been convicted for loitering in relevant area for purpose of prostitution or importuning any person to commission of sexual immorality or of abetment of such offence-Section 237, in circumstances, held, not applicable to case and impugned action taken against petitioner without lawful authority-Offence if any, held further, would tall under S. 235 in circumstances.-[Words and phrases]. Date of hearing : 15th October 1979. …