P L D 1955 Sind 375 (PLP)

VELLANI, J.--‑This is a petition under section 491 Criminal P. C. in the nature of habeas corpus by the wife of the detenu Maqsood Ahmad. Notice to produce the body of the detenu issued to the Superintendent of the District Prison as also to the inspector of Police, City Police Station, Karachi. The return of the Superintendent of the District Prison is that the detenu is not in jail custody. The Inspector, City Police Station, has produced the body of the detenu. He has at all previous hearings been producing the body of the detenu. On 14th February, 1955 the applicant filed an application supported by an affidavit in which she stated that the detenu had never been sent to the District Prison and sought an order from this Court that pending the hearing of her application, he may be ordered into judicial custody. The order granting the application was made on 19th February, 1955 but the order has not been carried out. The position therefore is the same as it was before the application was made. In the‑counter affidavit which has been filed by Muhammad Abdus Samad, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karachi, C. I. D., it is apparent that the grounds of detention were served on 9th December, 1954 by S. I. Ehsan Ali upon the detenu. This would not have happened if the detenu had been in the District Prison. The detenu was detained pursuant to an order under section 3 of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, dated 10th November, 1954 for three months. On 9th December, 1954 grounds of his detention were served upon him. Upon the expiry of the order the Chief Commissioner has issued a fresh order of detention for a further period of three months. The question is, by what authority the Inspector of Police, City Police Station, is holding the detenu. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the Chief Commissioner has by orders dated 10th November, 1954, 9th December, 1954, 22nd December, 1954, 22nd January, 1955 and 10th February, 1955 placed the detenu in the custody of the C. I. D. Police for purposes of interrogation. There is nothing to indicate what crime has been reported or registered against the detenu to which this long interrogation relates. It is but obvious that before the police can keep a person in its custody it must have lawful authority. Authority shown to us is the one mentioned above. Its lawful basis however has not been pointed out to us. As has already been observed, in point of fact ‑the detenu has never been detained in the Karachi District Prison and the custody of the detenu by the police is not related to investigation of any reported crime. That being so, the custody is illegal and we set the detenu at liberty. A. H. Detenu set at liberty.