1989 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. BASHIRAN alias CHHURI‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAHIMYAR KHAN and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. BASHIRAN alias CHHURI‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAHIMYAR KHAN and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. BASHIRAN alias CHHURI‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAHIMYAR KHAN and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Masood Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner.
- S.M. Rizvi, A.A.G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Detention order, legality of‑‑Detenu never indulging in acts of violence‑ Involvement in Hudood cases not furnishing even subjective satisfaction for detaining her‑‑Grounds of detention not conveyed to detenu `as soon as possible'‑‑Detention order declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑Detenu released in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Rizvi, A.A.G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988. Through this Constitutional Petition Mst. Bashiran alias Chhuri wants this Court to declare order of the District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan whereby she was ordered to be detained for 3 months, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no valid ground for the detention of the petitioner. The learned A.A.G. has supported the impugned order. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the earned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner had never been indulging in acts of violence. Her involvement in Hudood case could not have furnished even subjective satisfaction for the purpose of detention under section 3 of M.P.O.O. Furthermore the grounds of her detention were not conveyed to her as soon as possible. 4. For what has been stated above the impugn order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner has already been ordered to be released Through short order of even date. S.A./B‑99/L Petition accepted.