P L D 1950 Sind 68 (PLP)
MUZAFARDIN alias MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1950 Sind 68 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Tyabji, C. J. and Constantine, J |
| Parties | MUZAFARDIN alias MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1950 Sind 68 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1950 Sind 68 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Tyabji, C. J. and Constantine, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1950 Sind 68 (PLP) (MUZAFARDIN alias MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sheikh Ayaz, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Sind Maintenance of Public Safety Act, (XV of 1948)
S. 4 Provisions mandatory‑Grounds of detention not communicated to detenu‑Detention: illegal‑Belated compliance does not revalidate authority for detention. Provisions of section 4 are mandatory their object is to enable a detenu to make a representation and thus to give him an opportunity of securing his freedom by adducing fresh fact by explaining or disproving the facts previously held against him or by making any other form of representation to the satisfaction of the authorities. Though the original order of detention was at the time that it was made perfectly legal and proper, yet, when this opportunity has been omitted, his detention becomes illegal. The detention having become illegal, belated opportunity will not revalidate the authority for his detention. Advocate‑General, for Crown.
Judgment & Decree
CONSTANTINE, J.‑
In this case warrants of arrest under the Sind Maintenance of Public Safety Act were issued by the District Magistrate, Karachi, on the 23rd March 1949, against six persons including the applicant Muzaffardin alias Muhammad Shafi. On the April 6th, the Administrator oft Karachi passed an order directing his detention under custody for a further period of 5 months. This order recites in accordance with the terms of section 2 of the Sind Maintenance of Public Safety Act, 1948 that the Administrator is satisfied that with a view to preventing the applicant from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public orders that it is necessary to detain the applicant. Mr. Sheikh Ayaz on behalf, of the applicant does not contest that the order in itself contains any illegality. He contend, however, that the provisions of section 4 have not been observed. Section 4 requires that when an order is made in respect of I any person under clause (a) of Subsection (1) of section .2 as soon as may be after the order is made the authority shall communicate to the person the grounds on which the order is made against him and such other particulars as are in the opinion of the authority sufficient to enable him to take, if he so wishes, a representation against the order. The section also states that it shall be the duty of the authority to inform such person of his right of making such representation, and to afford him the earliest practical opportunity of doing so. The learned Advocate‑General concedes that in this case the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenu until, after notice of this application the Advocate General himself brought this to the notice of the authorities. This was on Friday last. It appears to us that the provisions of section 4 are mandatory ; their object is to enable a detenu to make representation and thus to give hire an opportunity of securing his freedom by adducing fresh facts by explaining or disproving the facts previously held against him or by making any other form of representation to the satisfaction of the authorities. Though the original order of detention was at the time that it was made perfectly legal and proper, yet, when this opportunity has been omitted, his detention becomes illegal. . The detention having become illegal, we do not think that a belated opportunity will revalidate the authority for his detention. We, therefore direct that the applicant be set at liberty. K. M. A. Petition accepted,