1997 PLP 1236 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S. 3(1)‑‑‑Preventive detention on the ground of involvement in many criminal cases‑‑‑Except for the cases mentioned in Explanations (i) and (ii) to S.3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, no one can be detained on the pretext of preventive detention simply because numerous criminal cases are either registered or are pending against him‑‑‑Reason for holding such view is that for each and every crime committed, an accused is supposed to face the trial and also to face punishment if held guilty‑‑ Multiplicity of such cases is no ground because each and every case has to be decided on merits and is bound to be taken to its logical and legal conclusion and a person being tried for an offence on the one hand and being detained on the pretext of preventive detention on the other, tantamounts simply to double condemnation for one and the same act. ‑‑‑[Preventive detention]. Shad Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. Tahir Hussain Lughmani, A.‑A.G. for Respondents, Date of hearing: 22nd September, 1996. SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Naseem son of Sharab Khan of Village Dhodial, Mansehra, through an order dated 29‑8‑1996 of the District Magistrate, Mansehra was detained under section 3(l) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, on the ground that he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the security, the public safety and the maintenance of public order in Mansehra. The District Magistrate on the basis of reliable information was of the view that the detention of Naseem was necessary for the "maintenance of peaceful condition in Mansehra District".

2. Such detention is challenged before this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution by one Muhammad Rafique a brother‑in‑law of the detenu.

3. We had served notice upon the respondent and also had sought the attention of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General. The District Magistrate has produced a file before us containing a list of 14 criminal cases registered from time to time against the petitioner under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement l of Hadd) Order, 1979, section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and some sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. Out of such cases three were shown to have been pending at the moment while the rest stood decided. In 2/3 cases he is acquitted while in the remaining cases he faced convictions. In view of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General this was a state of affairs prejudicial to the public safety and to the maintenance of peace and order in Mansehra District.

4. This being the only ground of his detention, we are constrained to observe that such detention is illegal particularly when it is made under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. A similar case had come before Lahore High Court where the detenu had challenged his detention under Article 199 of the Constitution and it was held ultimately in "Muhammad Tufail v. S.H.O. etc." (1990 PCr.LJ 1161) that mere fact that detenu had been involved in a number of criminal cases, per se, was not a valid ground for preventive detention.

5. Our own High Court in "Muhammad Iqbal v. Deputy Commissioner" (PLD 1992 Peshawar 107) held the same view which was again maintained in "Muhammad Rafique v. District Magistrate" (PLD 1992 Pesh. 26) by a Division Bench of this Court.

6. It has now become a settled view that except for the cases mentioned in Explanations (i) and (ii) to section 3(l) of the Ordinance, no one can be detained on the pretext of preventive detention simply because numerous criminal cases are either registered or are pending against him. The simple reason for holding such view is that for each and every crime committed, an accused is supposed to face the trial and also to face punishment if held guilty. The multiplicity of such cases is no ground because each and every case has to be decided on merits and is bound to be taken to its logical and legal conclusion. A person being tried for an offence on the one hand and being detained on the pretext of preventive detention, on the other, tantamounts simply to a double condemnation for one and the same act.

7. In the circumstances, the detention of petitioner ordered by the District Magistrate, Mansehra on 29‑8‑1996 is declared void and unlawful and the petitioner, if not required to be detained in any other cause, is directed to be released forthwith. N.H.Q./2026/P Petition accepted.