P L D 1956 Sind 198 (PLP)

G. M. Shah for Applicant. S. Nasiruddin for the Crown. VELLANI, J.‑The applicant has been declared to be a dangerous disorderly person under section 12 (2) (9) of the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, 1952 by the Tribunal, Mr. Mehdi Ali Siddiqi. The appointment of Mr. Mehdi Ali Siddiqi as Tribunal is questioned. Under section 2 of the Act as amended by Act 20 of 1953, the Administrator of Karachi may for the purposes of the Act by notification in the Official Gazette constitute for the Capital of the Federation a Tribunal con sisting of the District Magistrate or an Additional District Magistrate of Karachi. In the Gazette of Pakistan dated 18th December 1953 the following two Notifications were published : ‑ "Chief Commissioner's Secretariat Karachi, the 1st December 1953 No. 35/10/53‑Home.‑By virtue of the powers vested in him under section 2 of the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, 1952, the Chief Commissioner of Karachi has been pleased to appoint, until further orders, Mr. Mehdi Ali Siddiqi, Additional District Magistrate, Karachi as the Tribunal for the purposes of the said Act. This Administration notification of even number dated the 16th November 1953 appointing Mr. S. Moenuddin Qureshi, City Magistrate and A. D. M. as the Tribunal is hereby cancelled. Karachi, the 9th December 1953.‑No. 35/10/53‑Home. In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 10 of the Cr. P. C., 1898, the Chief Commissioner of Karachi is pleased to appoint Mr. Mehdi Ali Siddiqi, M.A. LL.B. Additional City Magistrate, First Class to be an Additional District Magistrate, Karachi, for the purposes of the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, 1952." Upon the affidavit of Ghulam Hussain, Superintendent in the. Chief Commissioner's Secretariat dated 11th March 1955 it appears that the "1st December 1953" is a misprint for 9th December 1953. Both the notifications are dated 9th December 1953 and were published in the Gazette of Pakistan dated 18th December 1953. They must be read together. Under section 10 (2) Cr. P. C. the Provincial Government may appoint any Magistrate of the first class to be an Additional District Magistrate and such Additional District Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under this Code, or under any other law for the time being in force, as the Provincial Government may direct. The second of the above notifications is made in exercise of powers conferred under this subsection and Mr. Mehdi Ali Siddiqi is appointed to be "an Additional District Magistrate" for the purposes of the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, 1952 while the first of the above notifications appoints Mr. Mehdhi Ali Siddiqi, described as an Additional District Magistrate of Karachi, as a Tribunal for the purposes of the Act. The qualification mentioned in section 2 of the Act as amended, is by reference to designation of the person, namely, the District Magistrate or an Additional District Magistrate of Karachi but the qualification has no reference to the powers exerciseable by either of them. The argument that Mr. Mehdhi Ali Siddiqi could not be appointed a Tribunal under the Act because no powers of a District Magistrate under Part V of Schedule III (under section 36) of the Cr. P. C. had been conferred upon him, fails. It is true that the second of the notifications says that Mr. Mehdi Ali Siddiqi is appointed an Additional District Magistrate, Karachi, for the purposes "of the Karachi Control of Disorderly Persons Act, 1952" and that section 2 of the Act specifies this designation as a qualification for appointment as a Tribunal under the Act and the powers under the Act are not the powers of an Additional District Magistrate under the Criminal P. C. nor powers "under any other law for the time being in force" within the meaning of section 10 subsection 2 Criminal P. C., but these make no difference. Upon this notification, since it appoints Mr. Mehdi Ali Siddiqi as an Additional District Magistrate, conferment of powers of a District Magistrate can follow and the absence of conferment of powers does not B render the appointment of Mr. Mehdi Ali Siddiqi as an Additional District Magistrate, inoperative. It is said that there has been a breach of section 6 of the Act which says that a Tribunal shall take cognizance of a case only when an information in respect of a specified person is laid before it by a police officer of the area concerned, not lower in rank than an inspector of Police who has taken part in the investigation of the case, in that the Police Inspector who laid the information had not investigated the case or recorded the statements of the witnesses or maintained diaries. Now the information must set out among other things instances with details of time and place of practices with which the person is charged and statement of any relevant general reputation in which he is held. These are likely to be previous cases reported and challaned or not challaned in Court, the existence of which may be discovered by the Inspector considering the laying of information, but in the recording or investigation of which he may have taken no part. The question is whether the words in section 6 (1) ." in the investigation of the case" have reference to the instances or to the case of laying the information under the Act before the Tribunal. In Criminal Revision Application No. 230 of 1954 (Feroza Begum v. The Crown) decided on 5th November 1954, this Court said " The question raised is that P I. Agha Sami was not a person who had taken part in the investigation of the case. The word 'case' in section 6 of the Act, it is argued, covers the three instances mentioned in the information and admittedly these three instances were investigated by other police officers below the rank of an Inspector of Police. It is obvious, however, and the context in which the word 'case' is used shows, that it refers to the case of laying an information under this Act, that is to say, the consideration of the question whether there is sufficient material to move the Tribunal under this Act. The instances, as here, may themselves be the subject matter of separate prosecutions but that does not affect the matter." In the absence of any provision in the Act making Chapter XIV of the Criminal P. C. which relates to investigation of criminal cases by the police to investigation of case of information under section 6 of the. Act, the argument that the statements of the witnesses were not recorded or diaries maintained, has no force. For these reasons we dismiss the revision application an discharge the stay order. A.H. Petition dismissed.