P L D 1978 Lahore 794 (PLP)
NAIB SUBEDAR AHMED KHAN-Appellant Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. JHELUM-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1978 Lahore 794 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 199(1)(b)(i) read with West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S. 3(1)-Appellants invoking power under Art. 199(1)(b)(i) and High Court exercising power under such provision by refusing relief sought for High Court's order, held; as much an order under sub-para. (1) of para. (b) of cl. (1) of Art. 199 as an order directing production of detenus or their release-Provision with regard to appeal, held further, bars appeal where order passed under such sub-paragraph irrespective of nature of order passed, whether of rejection or acceptance of claim made and bar not relatable to content of order but to law under which passed.--Appeal (criminal). |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rehman and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | NAIB SUBEDAR AHMED KHAN-Appellant Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. JHELUM-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1978 Lahore 794 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1978 Lahore 794 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 199(1)(b)(i) read with West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S. 3(1)-Appellants invoking power under Art. 199(1)(b)(i) and High Court exercising power under such provision by refusing relief sought for High Court's order, held; as much an order under sub-para. (1) of para. (b) of cl. (1) of Art. 199 as an order directing production of detenus or their release-Provision with regard to appeal, held further, bars appeal where order passed under such sub-paragraph irrespective of nature of order passed, whether of rejection or acceptance of claim made and bar not relatable to content of order but to law under which passed.--Appeal (criminal). bench comprising: Shafiur Rehman and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1978 Lahore 794 (PLP) (NAIB SUBEDAR AHMED KHAN-Appellant Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. JHELUM-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Pir S. A. Rashid for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 3rd February 1977.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) -- Art. 199(1)(b)(i) read with West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S. 3(1)-Appellants invoking power under Art. 199(1)(b)(i) and High Court exercising power under such provision by refusing relief sought for High Court's order, held; as much an order under sub-para. (1) of para. (b) of cl. (1) of Art. 199 as an order directing production of detenus or their release-Provision with regard to appeal, held further, bars appeal where order passed under such sub-paragraph irrespective of nature of order passed, whether of rejection or acceptance of claim made and bar not relatable to content of order but to law under which passed.--[Appeal (criminal)].
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR REHMAN, J.-This judgment disposes of in limine the following two appeals :
1. I. C. A. No. 13/77, Naib Subedar Ahmad Khan v. The District Magistrate, Jhelum and 3 others.
2. I. C. A. No. 14/77, Naib Subedar Ahmad Khan v. The District Magistrate, Jhelum and 3 others. The District Magistrate, Jhelum, by two separate orders dated 21-12-1976, directed the preventive detention of Qazi Mazhar Hussain and his son Qazi Zahur Hussain, under section 3, subsection (1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, for a period of fifty days commencing from 23-12-1976. The appellants invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 for challenging their detention and seeking an order that the detenus be produced before the Court and their detention be declared to be without lawful authority and they be set free. After notice to the respondents and examining the facts the learned Judge in Chambers. noted that the detenus were at liberty to make a representation to the Government and that there was no justification to by pass the departmental remedy available to the detenus and dismissed the petitions leaving the detenus to avail of the right of representation granted to them by the statute concerned. Hence these two appeals.
2. As regards the competence of these appeals the learned counsel has referred to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance and urged that it is only against an order made under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (b) of clause (1) of Article 199 that an appeal has been made incompetent. Therefore, it is contended that if no order is made with regard to the production of the detenus or their release from custody as provided for in that sub-paragraph an appeal would be competent.
3. This does nor appear to us to be the correct view because a power has been conferred by sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (b) to make an order directing that "a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner." The appellants invoked this specific power and the learned Judge in Chamber exercised this power but he did so by refusing the relief sought for by the appellants. It was, therefore, as much an order under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (b) of clause (1) of Article 199 as an order directing the production of the detenus or their release. The provision with regard to appeal bars an appeal where an order is passed under that subparagraph irrespective of the nature of the order passed i.e. whether it is of rejection of the claim made or its acceptance. The bar is not relatable to the contents of the order but to the law under which it has been passed. On that view of the matter, we find that both the appeals are incompetent and they are dismissed in limine. S. A. H. Appeals issued.