1989 P Cr (PLP)
QADIR BAKHSH Petitioner Versus Syed SHAUKAT ALI SHAH and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | . Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | QADIR BAKHSH Petitioner Versus Syed SHAUKAT ALI SHAH and 3 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) (QADIR BAKHSH Petitioner Versus Syed SHAUKAT ALI SHAH and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Manzoor Ahmad for Petitioner.
- S.M. Rizvi, AA.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Detention order, legality of‑‑Grounds of detention not conveyed to detenu even after more than 20 days of his detention and detenu had already been acquitted in case which was made basis of his detention‑‑Detention order was declared to be illegal.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Manzoor Ahmad for Petitioner. S.M. Rizvi, AA.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988. Through this Constitutional petition, Qadir Bakhsh wants this Court to declare the order, dated 8‑6‑1988 of the learned District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan whereby he was ordered to be detained for 3 months under section 3 of M.P.O.O. 1960, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the grounds of the detention were not conveyed to the petitioner as soon as possible and that the petitioner had already been acquitted in the cases which have been made the basis of the impugned order. The learned A.A.‑G. has supported the impugned order.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the petitioner was arrested on 8‑6‑1988. He was sent to jail immediately but the grounds of his detention were not conveyed to him till 29‑6‑1988. This infirmity per se renders the impugned order as illegal. Furthermore in case F.I.R. No. 153 under section 3/4, Prohibition Ordinance which has been made the basis of the detention order, the petitioner had already been acquitted. So this ground was not available. The second ground is too vague.
4. For what has been stated above the impugned order is declared to be illegal and of no legal effect. The petitioner has already been ordered to be released through short order of even date. H.B.T./Q‑16/L Petition accepted.