PLD 2006

P L D 2006 Karachi 162 (PLP)

ALI ASGHAR SHAH — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
2005-November-17
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 2006 Karachi 162 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties ALI ASGHAR SHAH — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Karachi 162 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Karachi 162 (PLP)?

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

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

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Karachi 162 (PLP) (ALI ASGHAR SHAH — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in Pakistan

Headnotes / Summary

Rr. 245 & 248

Application for grant of better class in jail

Applicant, who was facing trial, applied for grant of better class in jail on ground that he was graduate having passed B.A.

Trial Court rejected said application on ground that applicant did not have requisite social status of family and that he was unable to show substantial income

Validity

Trial Court had misdirected itself to provisions of R.245 of the Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in Pakistan in rejecting application

Classification of under-trial prisoners was regulated by R.248 of Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in Pakistan, whereunder there were only two classes of prisoners; (a) better class; (b) ordinary class and according to said provisions, undertrial prisoners who by social status, education or habit of life had been accustomed to superior mode of living could be granted better class

Applicant, admittedly was graduate and education should be given priority in comparison to financial status

No rule prescribing minimum academic qualification to qualify for better class had been specifically pointed out

Graduation was sufficient educational/academic qualification for grant of better class

More particularly minimum qualification for a person for being elected to Parliament as prescribed under relevant laws had been fixed as graduation

Applicant, in circumstances was entitled to grant of better class, if he was not otherwise disqualified.

Judgment & Decree

Through this Criminal Revision Application, applicant has questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 17-8-2005, passed by learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Hyderabad and Mirpurkhas Division at Hyderabad, whereby the application of the applicant/U.T.P. for grant of better class was rejected.

2. Applicant is in jail custody, having been involved in Crime No.111 of 2004 registered at Police Station Hussainabad, and is facing trial before Anti-Terrorism Court Hyderabad in Special Case No.6 of 2005.

3. He applied for grant of better class in jail on the ground that he was graduate, having passed B.A. But his application was rejected by the trial Court.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the Applicant is admittedly graduate having produced on record the certificate of B.A., but learned trial Judge declined to grant him better class in jail on the ground that he did not have the required social status of the family and further that he was unable to show the substantial income. It is contended that the order passed by learned trial Judge was illegal as a prisoner claiming better class is not required to qualify all the conditions.

5. Learned State counsel faint-heartedly opposed the application, but could not rebut the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant.

6. We have considered the submissions and perused the impugned order.

7. At the outset it may be pointed out that the order passed by the trial Court was misdirected and misconceived on two counts. Firstly; the trial Court misdirected itself to the provisions of rule 245 of the Pakistan Prisons Rules and secondly; it declined a better class to the applicant for the reasons that he does not possess social and financial status and that he has not demonstrated having sufficient income. As a matter of fact classification of undertrial prisoners is regulated by Rule 248 of the Pakistan Prisons Rules. Under the above rule there are only two classes of prisoners (a) better class (b) ordinary class. According to these provisions undertrial prisoners who by social status, education or habit of life have been accustomed to the superior mode of living may be granted better class. Being the citizens of a Republic which has constitutionally been declared Islamic State, welfare and enlightenment of the people whereof we are striving for, the State is supposed to and expected to begin to value acquisition of knowledge as a primary occupation of the society, and is under obligation to encourage and promote education and knowledge instead of encouraging amassing of wealth. The emphasis laid by Islam on acquiring knowledge is certainly unparalleled in the history. Thus the education should be given priority in comparison to the financial status as it is unignorable hard reality that the insatiable lust for acquiring limitless wealth, mostly by foul means and unquenchable desire for accumulating the same has torn into pieces moral fibre of the society. The object of enlightenment of society could be achieved by imparting more and more education and not by accumulation of wealth.

8. Admittedly, the applicant is graduate. No rule prescribing the minimum academic qualification to qualify for better class has been specifically pointed out. We believe that graduation is sufficient educational/academic qualification for grant of better class. More particularly the minimum qualification for a person for being elected to the Parliament as prescribed under the relevant laws has been fixed as graduation. Therefore, we declare that an under-trial prisoner having education up to the level of graduation will be entitled to be awarded better class, if he is not otherwise disqualified.

9. In the light of above discussion, the order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. The application is allowed. The Applicant be granted better class in the prison. H.B.T/A-8/K Application allowed.