2024 P Cr (PLP)
Jail Superintendent, District Jail Kotli and another — Appellants Versus Muhammad Riaz — Respondent
| Citation | 2024 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court AJ & K |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Jail Superintendent, District Jail Kotli and another — Appellants Versus Muhammad Riaz — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court AJ & K bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 P Cr (PLP) (Jail Superintendent, District Jail Kotli and another — Appellants Versus Muhammad Riaz — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Maqbool War, Advocate General for the Appellants.
- 2. Despite repeated notice no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, hence, we constrained to decide the appeal after hearing the earned Advocate-General and perusing the available record.
- 3. The learned Advocate-General submitted that the prevailing situation of District Jail Sudhnoti is not up to mark. The said Jail is already overcrowded and in view of the security measures he authorities shifted the convict to-the District Jail Kotli as the same is in better condition than the District Jail Sudhnoti, but the learned High Court overlooked this aspect of the case. He prayed for acceptance of appeal.
- 4. We have heard the arguments and examined the record made available. In our view it cannot be left on the choice of the convicts to choose any sail rather the concerned authorities may take any decision in this regard while taking into account the safety measures and other relevant factors. In the instant case, the version of the learned Advocate-General is that in view of the security measures as well as the strength of the convicts, District Jail Kotli is better than District Jail Sudhnoti hence, there is no reason to compel the concerned authorities to shift the convict in an overcrowded jail where the security situation is also not up to mark as stated by the learned Advocate-General.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A
Shifting of convict to another jail
Scope
Jail authorities, powers of
Scope
Convict (confined in a district jail) filed an application before the High Court for shifting him to Jail of another District
High Court while accepting said application issued direction to the concerned jail authorities as prayed for
Jail authorities assailed said order before the Supreme Court
Held that it cannot be left on the choice of the convicts to choose any jail ,rather the concerned authorities may take any decision in said regard while taking into account the safety measures and other relevant factors
There was no reason to compel the concerned authorities to shift the convict in an overcrowded jail where the security situation was not up to mark
Supreme Court set aside the impugned shifting order passed by the High Court
Petition filed by the jail authorities was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J.
The convict-respondent, herein, filed an application before the High Court for shifting him from District Jail Kotli to District Jail Sudhnoti. The learned High Court through the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2022, accepted the application and issued the direction for shifting of the convict-respondent to District Jail Sudhnoti.
2. Despite repeated notice no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, hence, we constrained to decide the appeal after hearing the earned Advocate-General and perusing the available record.
3. The learned Advocate-General submitted that the prevailing situation of District Jail Sudhnoti is not up to mark. The said Jail is already overcrowded and in view of the security measures he authorities shifted the convict to-the District Jail Kotli as the same is in better condition than the District Jail Sudhnoti, but the learned High Court overlooked this aspect of the case. He prayed for acceptance of appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments and examined the record made available. In our view it cannot be left on the choice of the convicts to choose any sail rather the concerned authorities may take any decision in this regard while taking into account the safety measures and other relevant factors. In the instant case, the version of the learned Advocate-General is that in view of the security measures as well as the strength of the convicts, District Jail Kotli is better than District Jail Sudhnoti hence, there is no reason to compel the concerned authorities to shift the convict in an overcrowded jail where the security situation is also not up to mark as stated by the learned Advocate-General. In view of the above, we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. MQ/11/SC(AJ&K) Petition allowed.