2004 PLP 2305 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AFSAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2305 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFSAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2305 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2305 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2305 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AFSAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10-7-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan whereby die petitioner was burdened with cost of Rs.5000 which was to be paid to Abdul Khaliq, A.S.-I.-respondent No.2.
2. The relevant facts leading to this petition are; that the petitioner filed an application under section
491. Cr.P.C. stating therein that Muhammad Ahmad and Muhammad Saeed were being improperly detained by respondent No.2 at Police Station Taranda Suwai Khan. A Bailiff of the Court was deputed and the detenus were produced before the Court. During the proceedings it transpired that the arrest of the alleged detenus was duly mentioned in the case diary as well as in the daily diary and that the contents of application filed by the petitioner were not correct. Therefore, while dismissing the application of the petitioner' the learned Judge passed the impugned order relating to special cost.
3. I have gone through the memorandum of this petition and have heard respondent No.2 as well as the learned counsel for the State. It has been noticed that it was duty of respondent No.2 to comply with the orders of the Court and to produce the detenus alongwith relevant record before the learned Court.
4. Admittedly the alleged detenus were not named in the F.LR. and they were arrested in the case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant as is evident from the impugned order dated 10-7-2003. The supplementary statement was not recorded in the presence of the petitioner, so, he could never know that the detenus had been implicated. The liberty of a citizen is one of the most important fundamental rights and should be very jealously guarded. The police unfortunately enjoys the reputation of exceeding its powers. It is one of the functions of the Court to ensure that the police does not abuse its powers, Normally, Courts take notice of police excesses when a citizen/Faryadi knocks its door. In the existing circumstances in our country, it will not be, in the interest of justice to close this door or to discourage a citizen to knock it. Thus, in the circumstances I allow this petition and the order dated 10-7-2003 relating to special costs is set aside. H.B.T./M-224/L Petition allowed.