MUHAMMAD SALEEM ALIAS CHEEMAN Versus THE STATE

This is a revision under section 19 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 by Muhammad Saleem alias Cheeman against (1) the order of the District Tribunal, Lahore, dated 18-7-1973, whereby he declared him a `goonda' and placed certain restrictions on him and (2) the order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, dated 24-1-1974, whereby his appeal under section 18 was rejected.

2. The main contention urged by him is that according to the information laid against him before the District Tribunal by the prosecution, under section 5 of the said Ordinance, was that he had been prosecuted a number of times for the alleged commission of an offence under section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, and that once a case under section 307, P. P. C. had also been registered against him. All these cases were registered against him between 1964 and 1967. (It is now June 1975). But he was acquitted in all these cases This fact was admitted by the S. H. O., P. S. Naulakha, who had been sum moned in connection with this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted firstly ; that having been acquitted in all the cases instituted against him, the petitioner was not liable to be declared a Goonda and secondly that since admittedly no case has been lodged against the petitioner since 1967, he cannot be said to be habitually addicted to doing acts mentioned in various clauses of section 13 of the Goondas Ordinance. In support of the con tention that a conviction is necessary for declaring a person to be a goonda under section 13, the learned counsel relied on Arsala Khan v. State 1968 P Cr. LJ 107 .

3. I have carefully considered this contention. -The point raised is ticklish one. Various Acts and Ordinances for the control of Goondas were enacted in Pakistan from 1951 onward. The West Pakistan Control o Goondas Ordinance, 1959, is one of them. The purpose of enacting all these laws was to "control disorderly persons", commonly known as goondas Various acts, most of which are crimes under the penal laws of Pakistan, have been mentioned in clauses (e) to (z) of section 13 of the Ordinance and it has been provided that if a Tribunal is satisfied, as a result of an inquiry held under this Ordinance, that the person complained against frequently engages in any of those acts, he may be declared a goondas. Section 14 of the Ordi nance provides that after he is declared to be a goondas, he may be required to furnish a bond to be of a good behaviour for a period not exceeding three years, and certain restrictions may also be placed on his movements. For instance, he may be restrained from visiting or going within the surroundings of women schools or colleges, theatres, cinemas, amusement parks, public halls, restaurants, tea-shops, public gardens and race-courses etc. for a period not exceeding three years, Normally, if a person is found to be guilty of having committed any offence mentioned in one or more clauses of section 13 of the Goondas Ordinance, he would be convicted and sent to jail and he would thug automatically be prevented from visiting the above-mentioned places and would not be able to disturb pea during that period. If he is a habitual and is convicted of similar offences a number of times, the term of imprisonment awarded to him would probably exceed three years. Why was. then it necessary to enact this particular piece of legislation ? The reason obviously was that it was found that the goondas were normally reckless and dangerous persons and, out of fear of incurring their displeasure or hostility no one was prepared to come forward to depose against them and as such they could probably never be convicted, under the normal law, for the offences. committed by them. Various Acts and Ordinances were, therefore, passed or promulgated with a view to check the activities of such persons and to protect peaceful citizens. It can be argued that the intention probably was that the authorities charged with the maintenance of law and order should be given some powers, besides the normal law, to restrain and check the activities of such persons even when the authorities have not been able to get them con victed by a Court of law or even if they have to be acquitted due to lack of evidence.

4. However, if it were to be held that a person can be declared a Goonda merely on the ground that a large number of cases of the type mentioned in clauses (a) to (z) of section 13 of the Ordinance were instituted against him, irrespective of the fact as to whether or not he was convicted, the situation would be fraught with great danger because in that case it would be quite simple for the police to get false cases instituted against any person for ulterior purposes ; to hold a perfunctory inquiry and then to close the cases without trending up any challan on the ground that enough evidence was not available.) After repeating this performance about 8 to 10 times, the police could easily secure an order declaring him to be a goonda under section 13 of the Ordinance. Considering that this evil may be a much greater menace a than the fact that some disorderly persons may escape being declared goondas, I am inclined, respectfully, to agree with the conclusion arrived at in the aforementioned twos authorities and hold that some convictions are necessary before a person can be declared a goonda under section 13 of the Ordinance.

5. Since in this case the petitioner has admittedly been acquitted in all the cases instituted against him, I accept the revision and hold that the order of the District Tribunal dated 18-7-1973, declaring him to be a goonda as well as the consequential order under section 14 placing restrictions upon him is bad in law and is set aside. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Lahore Division, dated 24-1-1974, is also therefore set aside.

S. Q. Petition accepted.