P L D 1969 Lahore 445 (PLP)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J. On an information laid by the police under section 5 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, against Muzaffar Khan, petitioner the District Tribunal, Sargodha, took cognizance of the matter on the 27th of June 1968 and issued non‑bailable warrants under section 6 of the Ordinance for ht's arrest. This is a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution with the prayer that the "proceedings be declared as being without lawful authority and as being of no legal effect, and/or any direction deemed fit and necessary be issued to the authority concerned with the proceed ings against the petitioner."

2. It is contended that the proceedings are male fide and the police acted on the behest of Malik Haq Nawaz Khan Tiwana and Malik Rab Nawaz Khan (two retired police officers) who were inimical towards him and were responsible for getting false cases registered against the petitioner. The police, according to him, was interested against the petitioner and had dishonest motive in instituting proceedings against him under the Ordinance.

3. The copy of the complaint filed by the police under section 5 of the Ordinance has not been placed on record. It is, however, admitted in the petition that the cases were registered against the petitioner in the past.

4. It is provided in subsection (2) of section 5 of the Ordi nance that the complaint to be filed by the police should briefly set out (a) the practices with which the person complained against is charged ; (b) instances, with details of time and place of such practices ; (c) a statement of any relevant general repute in which such person is held and any other ground on which the information is based ; (d) names and other particulars of witnesses who will be produced to support the allegations contained in the information ; and (e) prayer as regards action to be taken against him. Section 6 empowers the Tribunal to summon the person complained against to appear before it. It may, for reasons to be recorded, instead of issuing summons, issue a warrant non‑bailable or bailable. The language in which section 6 is couched does not admit of any doubt that the Tribunal can refuse to summon the person complained against, i.e., in a case where the information laid before the Tribunal dots not conform to the requirements of section 5, or that the alleged acts do not fall within the purview of any of causes (a) to (i) of section

13. The Tribunal can take cognizance of a case only if any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (i) is alleged to have been committed by the person complained against, The Tribunal, after it has taken cognizance of a case, is charged with the statutory duty to proceed under section 10 to "inquire into this truth or otherwise of the information upon Which action has been taken, and for that purpose, may record such evident as may appear necessary . .", with a view to determining as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations.

5. The allegation of an ulterior motive on the part of the1 q police or other persons, if substantiated, can be of assistance to the Tribunal for forming its opinion as to the truth or falsity of the allegations. The allegations by themselves, even if true, do not render the proceedings as without lawful authority. If upon examination of the case it turns out to be one where the police officer has acted without due care and caution or where the proceedings manifestly appear to be for purposes other than those stated in the Ordinance, or for purposes other than those that have any rational connection with the objects for which proceedings under the Ordinance have been sanctioned by law, the same can be denounced as mala fide by the Tribunal and it can discharge the person complained against. On the contrary, if the allegations are proved to be correct, and a case is made out against him for an action under section 13, the Tribunal cannot, on account of the dishonest intention of the police, discharge him. Moreover, the question whether or not an act was done in bad faith is a question of fact and it requires a detailed inquiry. He who challenges the bona fide of a public authority or who contends that the authority has acted mala fide has to establish his case on clear and convincing evidence. It is not possible to this Court at this stage to go into the question, particularly when the Tribunal has the plenary power to hold an inquiry and examine this question. Furthermore, the decision of the Tribunal has been subjected to the incident of an appeal before the Commissioner under section 18, and in certain cases a revision is also competent before the High Court under section 19 of the Ordinance. Thus, the illegalities or irregularities, if any, committed by the Tribunal can be corrected by the appellate and the revisional authorities.

6. The relief claimed in the petition is in the nature of a prayer made for quashment of proceedings before a criminal Court. An application for quashment of proceedings lies under section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No case has been brought to our notice where cognizance had been taken by the Court under section 190, Cr. P. Code and any of the superior Courts had quashed the proceedings on the ground that the case was registered due to the dishonest motive of the 'c investigating agency or that in registering the case it had acted on the behest of somebody. The circumstances in which pro ceedings are liable to be quashed are that the Court has no jurisdiction; or that the case is barred under some law ; or that the prosecution allegations, even if accepted as true, do not. establish any offence against the accused. Before parting with the case, we would like to observe that the petitioner has neither challenged the validity of the law under which the proposed action is being taken against him, nor there is any allegation or mala fide on the part of the Tribunal.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine. A. E. Petition dismissed in limine.