PCRLJ 2016

2016 P Cr (PLP)

FIAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench)
Decided Date
2016-May-31
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2016 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench)
Bench Members N/A
Parties FIAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Primary Law Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 P Cr (PLP) (FIAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)

Representation

  • Babar Ilyas and Iftikhar Ahmad Tanoli for Petitioner.
  • 2. Since serious questions about the freedom and liberty of the petitioner were raised in the writ petition, the learned Additional Advocate General, present in Court in other cases, was put on notice, who accepted the notice and produced SHO Police Station Phulra, Mansehra, who stated at the bar that there was no criminal record in the police station showing involvement of the petitioner in activities prejudicial to law and order in the area and that the impugned order under section 3, M.P.O. was not issued on the report of local police. Anyhow, the record of case/cases against the petitioner showing his involvement in such like activities could also not be procured either from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mansehra or from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 3(1)

Power to arrest and detain suspected persons

Station House Officer of the police station informed the High Court that no criminal record was available to show involvement of the petitioner/detainee in any activities, which could be called as prejudicial to law and order situation in the area, and that the impugned order of preventive detention had not been issued on the report of the local police

Deputy Commissioner, even otherwise, could not have resorted to the preventive detention under S. 3 of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, even if there had been complaints pending in the court and perpetual warrants had been issued against the petitioner, as activities attracting other provisions of law were to be dealt with by the courts, and the petitioner, having been proven guilty, was to be punished after due process of law

Preventive detention of the petitioner, in absence of meeting the mandatory requirements of the law, was not warranted

Deputy Commissioner, being the Executive head of the District, had unjustifiably and illegally deprived the petitioner of his fundamental right of freedom and liberty on grounds other than available and valid for the preventive detention

Impugned order, being illegal, without any authority and void ab initio, was, set aside by the High Court

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.

Fiaz son of Gul Zaman, petitioner, has assailed order under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, by way of the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, whereby, the Deputy Commissioner, Mansehra (respondent No.2) issued the impugned order with regard to detention and confinement of the petitioner in Central Jail, Haripur, for a period of thirty days from the date of arrest on the ground of his involvement in timber smuggling and thereby posing threat to law and order and also acting in a manner which was prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of peaceful atmosphere in Agror Tanawal Forest Division. The impugned order would show that the same was issued on the basis of report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Agror Tanawal Forest Division, Oghi (respondent No.3), who in his letter dated 05.05.2016, reported that the petitioner was a chronic timber smuggler and was not refraining from his illegal practices despite repeated complaints in the Court and perpetual warrants against him.

2. Since serious questions about the freedom and liberty of the petitioner were raised in the writ petition, the learned Additional Advocate General, present in Court in other cases, was put on notice, who accepted the notice and produced SHO Police Station Phulra, Mansehra, who stated at the bar that there was no criminal record in the police station showing involvement of the petitioner in activities prejudicial to law and order in the area and that the impugned order under section 3, M.P.O. was not issued on the report of local police. Anyhow, the record of case/cases against the petitioner showing his involvement in such like activities could also not be procured either from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mansehra or from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer.

3. Even otherwise, if there were complaints pending in the Court and perpetual warrants issued against the petitioner in the cases, the Deputy Commissioner could not have resort to preventive detention under section 3, M.P.O., as activities attracting other provisions of law were to be dealt with by the Courts and petitioner punished accordingly if proven guilty after due process of law, but preventive detention, in the circumstances, was neither warranted by the law nor even called for under section 3, M.P.O., besides not meeting the mandatory requirements of law and justice. In any case, the impugned action on the part of 4 Executive heads of the district unjustifiably and illegally deprived a citizen of his fundamental rights of freedom and liberty on grounds other than available and valid for preventive detention.

4. The impugned order under section 3, M.P.O. dated 13.05.2016 is, therefore, a nullity in the eyes of law for being illegal, without lawful authority, and void ab initio. Therefore, on the acceptance of the writ petition, the impugned order of respondent No.2 under section 3, M.P.O. dated 13.05.2016 is set aside; and the petitioner be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. SL/241/P Petition accepted.