P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

RAHMAN, C. J.‑

This order will dispose of two criminal revision petitions Nos. 542 and 543 of 1956, both directed against orders passed by the District Tribunal, Rawalpindi, under the provisions of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners are Pehlwan Shah and Mahbub Shah, both residents of Mohra Shahwali Shah in Rawalpindi District. Each of them has been declared a Goonda under subsection (1) of section 13 of the Act. It is convenient to dispose of the two petitions together as they involve identical questions of law and facts. The order in each case merely recites that the two learned members of the District Tribunal of the Rawalpindi District were satisfied 'that grounds existed for declaring each petitioner to be a Goonda under subsection (1) of section 13 of the Act and declaration was, therefore, being made accordingly. Some consequential directions were also given calling upon each petitioner to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 with one surety in the like amount to ensure his good behaviour for a period of one year or in default to undergo detention in prison for the like period. It was further ordered that the declaration should be notified in the manner prescribed in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub‑rule (2) of rule 7 of the Punjab Control of Goondaa Rules 1951. Copies of the orders were also to be sent to other relevant authorities. Mr. Hasan Akhtar on behalf of the petitioners has strenuously argued before me that the orders in question suffer from the fundamental defect that they failed to conform to the provisions of section 263, Criminal P. C., which are attracted by virtue of section 10 of the Act itself. The last‑named section enjoins the Tribunal to follow in all cases the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for conducting trials and recording evidence in summary cases, but subject to the other provisions of the Act. There is apparently no other provision in the Act which could detract from the directions given by section 10, to adopt the procedure for summary trials envisaged by the Criminal P. C. This is conceded on behalf of the State by Mr. Zahir Abbas. He only referred me to section 15 of the Act which relates to the publication of the declarations made under the Act and appears to have no bearing on the point. Section 263, Criminal P. C., requires a Magistrate inter alia to record the finding and, in the case of a conviction, a brief statement of the reasons therefore. It is clear that the orders impugned in the present two petitions do not follow the provisions of section 263, Criminal P. C., in this respect. No finding as such is recorded unless the conclusion that the petitioner in each case was liable to be declared a Goonda may be described as one. In any case, no reasons whatever are adduced for this finding in any of these two orders, It was quite possible for the Tribunal to mention the relevant reasons without mentioning any matter that was to be kept confidential. The requirements of section 263, Criminal P. C., are not, therefore, satisfied and this vitiates the orders. My learned brother Kaikaus sitting in Single Bench, had taken a similar view in Shahab Din v. The Crown (P L D 1956 Lah. 235). The orders in question suffer from another fundamental infirmity. It appears that the charges proved against the two petitioners were that they were engaged in systematic smuggling of cattle across the border between Rawalpindi and Hazara Districts, against a notification issued banning such traffic. However, the orders in question do not, refer to any such finding, but, on the contrary, give one the impression that the petitioners have been guilty of some conduct covered by clauses (i) to (v) of subsection (1) of section 13 of the Act None of these clauses, however, contain any reference to a charge of smuggling cattle or any other commodity. They refer to entirely different sets of facts. The orders in question, therefore, appear to have no relation to the charges preferred against the petitioners. In these circumstances, I am constrained to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal under section 18 of the Act and I order accordingly. The Tribunal will now apply its mind to the material placed on record and then pass proper orders in accordance with law. A. H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.