PCRLJ 2010

2010 P Cr (PLP)

FAZAL MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, HOME DEPTT. PUNJAB and 4 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2010-March-12
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties FAZAL MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, HOME DEPTT. PUNJAB and 4 others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (FAZAL MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, HOME DEPTT. PUNJAB and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Khan Ghulam Ali Baloch for Petitioner.
  • Waqas Qadeer Dar, Asstt. A.G. for Respondents with Muhammad Ansar, Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Faisalabad.
  • 4. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate- General has maintained that the matter had already been settled in Writ Petition No.319, titled as Mst. Sakina Bibi v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Faisalabad, etc. vide order dated 8-2-2010.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/109/148/149

Constitutional petition

Qatl-e-amd

Petition for shifting accused to other jail

Nephew of the petitioner who was convicted and sentenced to death was confined in death cell in Central Jail at place `F'

Disturbance had taken place in said jail, number of prisoners had received injuries and three prisoners lost their live.

Nephew of the petitioner was found involved in the said incident, he was shifted to District Jail at place and the petitioner through his constitutional petition had sought re-shifting of accused to Central Jail at place `F'

Petitioner had not been able to show which of his nephew's fundamental right was being endangered by his shifting from Central Jail at place 'F'

Lot of disturbance was created by the convict prisoners of said jail and nephew of the petitioner also created serious law and order situation and he allegedly looted State property including jail factory articles along with hundred of other criminal elements--Three innocent prisoners had lost their lives while many had received injuries in the riot

High Court declined to interfere in the matter.

Judgment & Decree

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the respondents to shift the petitioner's nephew namely Ahmad Ali alias Ahmi from District Jail Vehari to Central Jail, Faisalabad.

2. Brief facts of the case are that nephew of the petitioner namely Ahmed Ali alias Ahmi son of Nosher was accused in case F.I.R. No 279 registered at Police Station Sadar, Faisalabad on 13-7-1992 in respect of offences under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C. and finally he was awarded death sentence by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31-10-2008 whereas his co-accused had been acquitted. The petitioner had filed appeal before this Court which was dismissed and then he had opted to challenge his sentence before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Petition No.551-L of 2009 wherein leave had been granted to him on 24-6-2009. The said nephew of the petitioner was confined in Death Cell when on 31-1-2010 riot and disturbance had taken place in Central Jail, Faisalabad. Number of prisoners have received injuries and three prisoners have lost their lives. The nephew of the petitioner was found involved in the above said incident, therefore, he has been shifted to District Jail, Vehari, hence the instant writ petition for his re-shifting to Central Jail, Faisalabad.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the nephew of the petitioner was confined in separate barrack of death sentence so he had no access to the other prisoners or even members of riot to participate in disturbance happened in Central Jail, Faisalabad, thus, he is liable to be shift back. It has been maintained that the legal heirs of the convict had already died and it is very difficult for the petitioner to meet his nephew at Vehari after making a long travelling.

4. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate- General has maintained that the matter had already been settled in Writ Petition No.319, titled as Mst. Sakina Bibi v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Faisalabad, etc. vide order dated 8-2-2010.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents appended with this writ petition I have noticed that the petitioner has not been able to show which of his nephew's fundamental right is being endangered by his shifting from Central Jail, Faisalabad. It has been noticed that a lot of disturbance was created by the convict prisoners of Central Jail, Faisalabad and the nephew of the petitioner also created serious law and order situation and he allegedly looted State property including jail factory articles along with hundred of other criminal elements on 30-1-2010 and 31-1-2010 During that riot three innocent prisoners have lost their lives while many have received injuries. Even otherwise on the same score this Court has already delivered verdict in Writ Petition No. 2319 of 2010. In such circumstances I am not inclined to interfere into the matter and this petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to approach the Inspector-General of Prison in this regard who is directed to consider the case of the nephew of the petitioner for shifting him in Central Jail, Faisalabad or any other jail which is easily approachable for the petitioner to see his nephew. H.B.T./F-9/L Petition dismissed.