P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

SHABIR AHMAD, J.‑This petition for revision under section 18 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against an order passed by the District Tribunal, Gujranwala, consisting of Mr. Inayat Ullah, District Magistrate, and Mr. Abdur Rashid, Superintendent of Police, whereby Muhammad Ali petitioner was ordered to be arrested and confined in the District Jail, Gujranwala, till the 30th of October 1956. The order further directed that proceedings for the forfeiture of the bond executed by the sureties of the petitioner on the 30th of October 1954 should be taken. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner was declared a dangerous goonda by the District Tribunal, Gujranwala, on the 30th of October 1954, and was directed to execute a bond in the sum of Rs, 5,000 with two sureties in the like amount to be of good behavior for a period of two years and this bond was duly executed. It appears from the order sought to be revised that the District Magistrate, who was one of the members of the Tribunal which passed the impugned order, had received numerous complaints against the petitioner and had also been informed that he had been convicted under section 14 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948) and that he was being prosecuted for an offence under section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the Court of a Magistrate at Gujranwala. On getting the above information, the District Magistrate consulted the Superintendent of Police as well as the Public Prosecutor, Gujranwala. After that the Tribunal sent for Ch. Khushi Muhammad, Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Gujranwala, on the 20th of January 1956 and recorded his statement. The Station House Officer deposed that the petitioner had been convicted on the 27th of December 1955 under section 14 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance and that a report for an offence under section 364 of the P. P. C, lead been registered at the Police Station, Gujranwala, against the petitioner. The Station House Officer added that Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Magis trate of the first class with powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Gujranwala, had framed a charge under section 364 of the P. P. C. against the petitioner and that the case against the petitioner was a strong one. After recording the statement of Ch. Khushi Muhammad, the District Tribunal passed the order sought to be revised. The order which is attached by this petition for revision was probably passed under subsection (6) of section 16 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951. The whole of the section may be reproduced here because it would be necessary to refer to some provisions contained in it. The section reads as follows :‑ "Bonds under Tribunal's orders.‑(1) Every bond furn ished in compliance with an order made by a Tribunal under this Act shall be in the form prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for a bond of the same 'description Provided that the Tribunal may direct that the sureties offered may be scrutinised by a Magistrate of the 1st Class nominated for the purpose by the District Magistrate. (2) The Tribunal may, where a person who has furnished a bond for his appearance makes default, direct, in addition to action under the other provisions of this Act, that a warrant shall be issued for the production of such person, which may be bailable or non‑bailable as the Tribunal may direct. (3) Where default is made in furnishing sureties the Tribunal may direct that the person from whom such sureties were demanded shall be committed to prison, or if he is already in prison, shall be detained in prison, until the sureties are furnished or the period for which the security is demanded expires, or the Tribunal makes an order for the release of the person detained, whether conditional or otherwise. (4) Any surety may apply to be released from the obligations of his bond, and the Tribunal may, after such enquiry as it may deem fit, call upon the person who is bound down to furnish a fresh surety, and thereupon the provisions of subsections (1) and (3) shall apply in relation thereto Provided that the surety seeking release shall not be released from his obligations unless a fresh surety has been accepted in his place or in case no ‑surety is furnished or accepted, he produces the person concerned before the Tribunal. (5) The provisions of section 514, Criminal P. C., 1898, shall apply in respect of the forfeiture of bonds furnished under this Act, as if for the expression `Court' the expression 'Tribunal' wherever applicable for the purposes of this Act, were substituted, and as if from subsection (1) of the said section, the reference to a Magistrate of the first class were exercised, and as if subsection (7) of the said section were to read as modified by the following amendments, namely :‑ , (i) reference to the words and figures 'section 106 or section 118 or section 562', were replaced by a reference to `clause (i) (b) of section 14 of this Act'; and (ii) reference to the words, figure and letter 'of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under section 514B' were replaced by a reference to the proviso to clause (1) (b) of section 14 of this Act. (6) A breach of any order made against any person under clause (i) (c), or clause (2) (a) or clause (2) (b) of section 14, or the commission of any offence which is punishable with imprisonment‑ under any law for the time being in force and which in the opinion of the Tribunal involves or implies moral turpitude, shall amount to a breach of a bond for good behavior which may have been furnished by him under this Act." There is no doubt that the petitioner was convicted of an offence under section 14 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948) by Qazi Hafiz Ullah Magistrate of the 1st Class, Gujranwala, on the 27th of December 1955. The offence, however, was committed on the 16th of August 1954 and I fail to see how the conviction for that offence could have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for holding that there had been a breach of the bond executed on the 30th October 1954 for the purposes of subsection (6) of section 16 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951. It is true that the powers given to the District Tribunal by the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, are very wide but it could never have been the intention of the legislature that the Tribunal could pass orders which could not be supported on any valid ground. The object of taking a bond from a person declared to be a goonda or a dangerous goonda is to put a check on him against committing offences after the execution of the bond, but if an offence was committed before the bond was executed, I do not see how the terms of the bond can be held to have been violated by‑the mere fact that the conviction for that offence was recorded at a date subse quent to the execution of the bond. It may be mentioned that the appeal of the petitioner against the sentence passed by Qazi Muhammad Hafiz Ullah, Magistrate 1st Class, Gujranwala, under section 14 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948) was accepted by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, but even if the conviction had been upheld not only by the Sessions‑ Judge but by even the highest Court in the land, the conviction being for an offence committed prior to the execution of the bond could not be considered A to be a breach of it. I will now deal with the second ground used by the Tribunal for the order sought to be revised. With regard to the offence under section 364 of the P. P. C., the Tribunal said as follows :‑ "In this case there is no doubt in our minds that the said Muhammad Ali has breached the conditions of his bond by the commission of the offence under section 364 of the P. P. C. which clearly implies moral turpitude on his part." In coming to their above conclusion, the members of the Tribunal acted on the statement made by Ch. Khushi Muhammad, Station House Officer, Police Station Sadr Gujranwala, and entirely overlooked the fact that at the time when they made their unambiguous pronouncement about the guilt of the petitioner under section 364 of the P. P. C., the case was pending in the Court of a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Gujranwala. It may be that because a District Tribunal was, under the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, given very wide powers, it may disregard all facts and circumstances which will have to be kept in view by a Court of law, yet, if not necessary, it is desirable, that with regard to an offence for which a person is being tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction the Tribunal should be slow to hold that the person was guilty of the offence and thereby overlook the fact that the question of his guilt was sub judice. But here again the Tribunal in their desire to further control a person whom they had already declared a dangerous goonda under the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, acted on insufficient material. The Tribunal did not know, what it would have known if it had waited a little, that the Magistrate who was hearing the case against the petitioner had charged him not under section 364 of the P. P. C. but only under sections 148 and 324/149 of that Code. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to support the order of the Tribunal by urging that it was not necessary that an order of conviction for an offence should have been passed before the Tribunal declared the forfeiture of the bond under subsection (6) of section 16 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, and relied on Mansur v. Emperor (73 1 C 332) and Sheo jangal Prasad v. Emperor (A I R 1928 All. 232) in support of his contention. The facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent were entirely different and I do not see how they can be invoked to support the order passed by the Tribunal. If a person is avoiding trial, it may be held by the Tribunal on the evidence before it that the man had been guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, but in cases where the man who is alleged to have committed the offence is facing his trial before a Court of competent juris diction, the Tribunal would be treading on dangerous ground if it pronounces the man guilty before the Court trying him has arrived at that conclusion because if the matter were to be taken up on the ground that the pronouncement of the Tribunal amounted to that offence it is as likely as not that it will be held that an offence of contempt of Court had been committed. I am clear in my mind that in the present case the conclusion that the petitioner had been guilty of an offence under section 364 of the P. P. C. and had thereby made the cancellation of his bond necessary was entirely unjustified. The Tribunal will, after the decision of the case pending against the petitioner in the Court of Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Magistrate 1st Class with powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and only in the event of the petitioner being convicted, consider if they are prepared to hold that the conviction of the petitioner discloses that he had been guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude. This leaves the order of the District Tribunal directing that the petitioner shall remain in jail and suffer rigorous imprisonment till the 30th of October 1956 to be dealt with. I have not been able to find any provision in the Punjab Control of Goondas Act which would authorise a District Tribunal to pass an order of this kind. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on subsection (3) of section 16 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act to defend this order of the Tribunal but it is obvious that even that subsection did not authorise the Tribunal to pass an order that the petitioner suffer rigorous imprisonment till the 30th of October 1956. Subsection, (5) of section 16 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, makes the provisions of section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to forfeiture of bonds given under the Act and though no mention is made in the subsection or in any other part of the Act to section 514‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it is provided inter alia that when a bond is forfeited the person who had put it in may be called upon to furnish another, it would 'appear that when the District Tribunal passed an order cancelling the bond of the petitioner by which was clearly meant its forfeiture, all that they could do was to call upon him to furnish a fresh bond. In case a fresh bond was not furnished by the petitioner the provisions of sub section (3) of section 16 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, would have been attracted and he would have remained in prison for as long as he did not furnish the bond and that period could extend to the 30th of October, 1956, but the detention would have had to terminate the moment the petitioner furnished the bond the non‑furnishing of which had resulted in his detention. I will now consider what order should be passed by me. I have indicated above that the petition purports to be not only under section 18 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, but under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not, in my view, empower the High Court to revise orders passed by a District Tribunal appointed under the Control of Goondas Act, 1951, because that section read with section 435 of the Code empowers the High Court to examine the records of cases pending or disposed of by any inferior criminal Court situate within the limits of its jurisdiction and a District Tribunal appointed under the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951,, is not such a Court. The power of the High Court to pass orders in relation to the orders passed by a Tribunal are governed by section 18 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, which limits the powers of the High Court to examine only such orders of the Tribunal as were passed under section 5, section 13 or section 16 of the Act and lays down that in case the High Court arrives at the conclusion that the Tribunal had exercised a juris diction not vested in them by law, had failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them by law or had acted illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction, the High Court may make such directions as it may deem sufficient for the rectification of the error or omission of the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall follow the direction. The powers of revision given to the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are very wide because even findings of fact arrived at by an inferior criminal Court can be gone into though no question of jurisdiction, failure to exercise it, or its illegal exercise may arise. Under section 18 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, on the other hand, the High Court can act only if the order of the Tribunal sought to be revised is defective on the score of exercise of a non‑existing jurisdiction, non‑exercise of jurisdiction or illegal exercise of jurisdiction and cannot concern itself with the correctness or propriety of the order on merits. The orders of the Tribunal attacked in this petition for revision raise material questions concerning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and section 18 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, applies to them. In view of what I have said above, I hold that in passing the order cancelling the bond of the petitioner the District Tribunal, Gujranwala, acted illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction and in directing that the petitioner remain in jail till the 30th of October 1956, they exercised a jurisdiction not vested in them by law. The order of imprisonment would be set aside and if the Tribunal want to take proceedings with a view to forfeiting the bond the petitioner put in under their order dated the 30th of October 1954 they should proceed in the manner indicated above. The result is that the petitioner in so far as it purports to be under section 18 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, is accepted. A. H. Petition accepted.