1988 PLP 887 (MLD)
Mst. MAHNAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 887 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddique and Ahmad Ali U. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MAHNAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 887 (MLD)?
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 1988 PLP 887 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddique and Ahmad Ali U. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 887 (MLD) (Mst. MAHNAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Mohammad Ishaque for Petitioner.
- A.R.Kazi A.A.G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 3(1)‑‑Detention order, legality of‑‑Detention order mentioning four pending cases under substantive law against accused and also allegation of habitual and notorious narcotic dealer‑‑Except pending cases no other allegation borne out from record‑‑Mere pendency of cases under substantive law, held, was not sufficient ground for ordering detention of person‑‑Order of detention was without lawful authority‑‑Detenu released in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑This Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is filed by the mother of the detenue challenging the detention of Allah Bux son of Miskan Khan. The detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of 30 days commencing from 23‑5‑1988 under the orders of the District Magistrate South, Karachi. The grounds of detention as mentioned in the impugned order are the four criminal cases of 1987 and 1988 pending under Section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance, 307/353, P.P.C. 3/4 Prohibition Ordinance and 13‑D, Arms Ordinance. In addition to these cases it is also mentioned in the impugned order that the detenu is a habitual notorious narcotic dealer/pedlar and selling charas and heroin. Apart from the fact that mere pendency of the cases under the substantive law is not a ground sufficient for ordering detention of a person under section 3(1) of the M.P.O. the other grounds of detention mentioned in the impugned order are wholly vague. The learned AA.G. has t us the material on the basis of which the order of detention was placed against the detenu but we find that in that material except for the mention of four criminal cases which are still pending in the Court of law no other ground of detention of the detenu is mentioned. WF accordingly hold the detention of the detenu as without lawful authority and direct the authorities to set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required by them in some other case. SA/M‑537/K. Detenu released