NIZAMUDDIN Versus STATE

This is an application under section 19 of the West Pakistan Control ,of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 by one Nizamuddin against whom the Tribunal set up under that Ordinance in Sukkur passed an order declaring the appli cant a goonda and requiring him to enter into a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with three sureties to be of good behaviour for two years. This order was appealed against but the appeal was rejected by the Commissioner of Khairpur.

2. Several questions have been taken up before me but one which I clink goes to the root of the mater and which has been conceded by the Sate suffices to dispose of the entire matter. Section 5 of the Ordinance regulates the manner in which cognizance is to be taken of the case under the Ordinance and subsection (1) thereof, among other things, requires that officer Incharge of the police station shall lay an information before the Tribunal and subsection (2) details the matters which must be specified in any such information. Clause (a) of that subsection requires the statement of practices with which the person complained against is charged and clause (b) further requires that the instances; with details of time and place of such practices are to be mentioned. There are outer requirements also but these two suffice to show that not only must the practices be stated but the instances which are required are to be of the practices referred in clause (a). Now in the present case the information gave the following practices:

(1) That the name of this Badmash is written on H‑S./58 Basta A. Police station A Section, Sukkur.

(2) This accused person is a habitual thief offender and robber.

(3) He is hazardous for the public.

(4) He gets himself released from the cases filed against him by harassing the witnesses arid by filing false cases against them.

(5) He has no business excepting evil acts.

(6) His being at large is hazardous for the public.

(7) He openly violates the law of the country.

(8) This Badmash is so much hazardous that no body dares come forward to give evidence against him.

(9) This Badmash is a habitual thief, and he has got no other livelihood except theft.

There are no instances mentioned in the complaint although there is a list of cases in which it is alleged that the appellant was challaned. I am quite unable to read the list of cases in which the applicant was challaned as being a statement of particulars within the meaning of the section and clearly, therefore, cognizance was wrongly taken and indeed the informa tion did not comply with the requirements of the law at all. The entire proceedings are manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction and Mr. Manzoor Hussain, learned counsel for the State has frankly conceded that this is the position.

3. Accordingly under section 19 I direct that the error be rectified by the Tribunal by cancelling the entire proceedings.

Proceedings quashed.