| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 65 1956 SLD 65 1956 PLD 235 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision Petition No. 739 of 1955 decided on 21st November 1955, under section 18 of Punjab Control of Goondas Act (XIV of 1951) for revision of the order of S. M. Shaft-ul-Azam and Makhdum Muhammad Ramzan Shah, Members of the District Tribunal,
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Mian Mahmud Ali and Sh. Rafiq Ahmad for Petitioner. S. A. Mahmood, Assistant Advocate-General, West Pakistan for
Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 739 of 1955 decided on 21st November 1955, under section 18 of Punjab Control of Goondas Act (XIV of 1951) for revision of the order of S. M. Shaft-ul-Azam and Makhdum Muhammad Ramzan Shah, Members of the District Tribunal,
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Mian Mahmud Ali and Sh. Rafiq Ahmad for Petitioner. S. A. Mahmood, Assistant Advocate-General, West Pakistan for
Respondent
SHAHAB DIN alias PUNNOO KHAN
VS
THE CROWN
Law: Punjab Control of Goondas Act, (XIV of 1951)
Section: 10,13,18
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 263
Punjab Controll of Goondas Act (XIV of 1951), -----Ss. 10, 13, 18-Order declaring goonda must state reasons for finding- Omission-High Court directed fresh order to be recorded stating reasons. A District Tribunal acting under the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, must record briefly the reasons for their order in accordance with section 263 of the Cr. P. C Section 10 of the Act requires the Tribunal's proceedings to be held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure for summary cases, and since, a proper interpretation of section 10 would be that the finding should be regarded a part of the trial, reasons for the finding must be stated in accordance with section 263 Cr. P. C Basil Ranger Lawrence v. Emperor A I R 1933 P C 218 ref. That the evidence in the case will show the reasons cannot dispense with the need of recording reasons in the final order. If reasons are not stated, one difficulty would be that it will be impossible for the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under section 18. Moreover, if the District Tribunal is satisfied only under a particular clause of section 13 and the High Court comes to the conclusion that that clause is not applicable, the High Court is bound to set aside that order even if it be of the opinion that the evidence does disclose a case under some other clause, because it cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of the District Tribunal. Where the Tribunal had not stated reasons for their finding, High Court set aside the order and directed a fresh order to be recorded embodying reasons for the decision. The wording of section 18 is deliberately wide and general, so as to enable the High Court to pass whatever order it thinks fit. JUDGMENT KAIKAUS, J.-This is an application under section 18 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act by one Shahab Din alias Punnoo Khan against whom the District Tribunal of Lyallpur has passed an order declaring him a goonda under section 13 of the Act and also ordering him to execute a bond under section 14 of the Act in the sum of Rs.2,000 with one surety in the like amount, to be of good behaviour for a period of six months. By virtue of theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492