1983 P Cr (PLP)
NOOK JEHAN BADSHAH-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.I.A., KARACHI AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, C.J. and Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | NOOK JEHAN BADSHAH-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.I.A., KARACHI AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, C.J. and Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (NOOK JEHAN BADSHAH-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.I.A., KARACHI AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shareef Kharak for Petitioner.
- for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491-Habeas : Corpus-Investigating authorities denying detention Order for production of detenu not issued in circumstances of case. Usman Ghani Rashid, Addl. A.-G. assisted by Ghulam Ally H: Agha
Judgment & Decree
AGHA ALI HYDER, C. J.-The allegation was that the alleged detenu was attached to the house of the former Inspector-General of Police here and though the latter had been transferred to Islamabad, yet he continued on, at the residence of the same, because the wife and the family members were here. It was further alleged that he was being forced to work at the house of the former L-G. and that he was not agreeable for the same, and it was only for this reason that he had been run down in a malicious and false case, which was registered at the T.P.X. Police Station. Notice had been issued to the Advocate-General, and there is a letter filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police from the C. I. A. It has been mentioned therein that a report had been lodged about theft of some cash and valuables, wherein suspicion had been indicated ever against the alleged detenu. He was taken to the police station, where he had been interrogated, but neither he was arrested nor anything had been secured from him. In view of the denial of the investigating anthorities, there is no deten tion made out, and, therefore, the question of any order for production does not arise. The potition is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.