2001 PLP 2695 (YLR)
NAIM AHMED KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2695 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed and Wahid Bux Brohi, JJ |
| Parties | NAIM AHMED KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Children Act (XIV of 1955) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2695 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Children Act (XIV of 1955) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2695 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed and Wahid Bux Brohi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2695 (YLR) (NAIM AHMED KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood A. Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Ainuddin Khan, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.
- Learned Additional Advocate -General has not yet been able to obtain instructions or convey to this Court whether a certified school, recognized institution or a borstal school exists in the Province. In any event detention in jail being patently unlawful we cannot perpetuate illegal deprivation of liberty of a citizen. We would, therefore, allow this petition to the extent that the custody of the detenu be handed over to the petitioner who happens to be the father of the detenu and competent person to whose custody a child can be entrusted. The Provincial Government may, however, pass any appropriate order but strictly in accordance with law. It is expressly clarified that a child cannot be detained in jail and any attempt to do so might entail serious consequences. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes to comply with any lawful order passed by the Government.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 68(2) to 97(2)
Penal Code (XIV of 1860), Ss. 302/353/324/34
Detenu who was accused of penal offence being child, his case was referred to the Provincial Government for passing, appropriate order under S.68(2) of Sindh Children Act, 1955, but no order was passed despite the period of four and half months had passed and the detenu had been kept in custody at the Central Prison
Child could not be detained in jail and under S.68(2) of Sindh Children Act, 1955 only an order of detention could be passed in terms of 5.97(2) of the said Act
Detention in jail being patently unlawful, illegal deprivation of liberty of a citizen could not be perpetuated-- Custody of the detenu was ordered to be handed over to the father of the detenu in circumstances. Province of Sindh v. Din Muhammad 1993 SCMR 1551 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 68(2) to 97(2)
Penal Code (XIV of 1860), Ss. 302/353/324/34
Detenu who was accused of penal offence being child, his case was referred to the Provincial Government for passing, appropriate order under S.68(2) of Sindh Children Act, 1955, but no order was passed despite the period of four and half months had passed and the detenu had been kept in custody at the Central Prison
Child could not be detained in jail and under S.68(2) of Sindh Children Act, 1955 only an order of detention could be passed in terms of 5.97(2) of the said Act
Detention in jail being patently unlawful, illegal deprivation of liberty of a citizen could not be perpetuated-- Custody of the detenu was ordered to be handed over to the father of the detenu in circumstances. Province of Sindh v. Din Muhammad 1993 SCMR 1551 ref. Mehmood A. Qureshi for Petitioner. Ainuddin Khan, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents. SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.-- Admittedly the detenu was found guilty of penal offence under sections 302/353/324 read with section 34, P.P.C. and being -a child in terms of the provisions of Sindh Children Act his case was referred to the Provincial Government for passing appropriate orders under section 68(2) of the Sindh Children Act by the judgment of the trial Court, dated 31-1-2000. No order appears to have been passed during 4-1/2 months and the detenu has apparently been kept in custody at the Central Prison, Karachi. The law is well-settled to the effect that a child cannot be detained in jail and under section 68(2), perhaps, only an order of detention could be passed in terms of section 97(2) of the Act. The position has been explicitly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Province of Sindh v. Din Muhammad (1993 SCMR 1551). Learned Additional Advocate -General has not yet been able to obtain instructions or convey to this Court whether a certified school, recognized institution or a borstal school exists in the Province. In any event detention in jail being patently unlawful we cannot perpetuate illegal deprivation of liberty of a citizen. We would, therefore, allow this petition to the extent that the custody of the detenu be handed over to the petitioner who happens to be the father of the detenu and competent person to whose custody a child can be entrusted. The Provincial Government may, however, pass any appropriate order but strictly in accordance with law. It is expressly clarified that a child cannot be detained in jail and any attempt to do so might entail serious consequences. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes to comply with any lawful order passed by the Government. H.B.T./N-69/K Order accordingly.