P L D 1979 Karachi 691 (PLP)
AKBAR-Petitioner Versus SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, HYDERABAD —
| Citation | P L D 1979 Karachi 691 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 3, Sind Foodstuffs Control Act (XX of 1958). Ss. 3 & 6 and Martial Law Order No. 7 M. L. A.'s (Zone C)-Hoarding and black marketing-Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1956-Applic able only to Karachi and not to any other area-Conviction under such order for an action allegedly taken in area other than Karachi, held, illegal. |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa and Mushtak Ali Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | AKBAR-Petitioner Versus SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, HYDERABAD — |
| Primary Law | Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1979 Karachi 691 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1979 Karachi 691 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 3, Sind Foodstuffs Control Act (XX of 1958). Ss. 3 & 6 and Martial Law Order No. 7 M. L. A.'s (Zone C)-Hoarding and black marketing-Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1956-Applic able only to Karachi and not to any other area-Conviction under such order for an action allegedly taken in area other than Karachi, held, illegal. bench comprising: Z. A. Channa and Mushtak Ali Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1979 Karachi 691 (PLP) (AKBAR-Petitioner Versus SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, HYDERABAD — ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioner.
- Abdul Sattar G. Shaikh, Addl. A: G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 7th February 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 3, Sind Foodstuffs Control Act (XX of 1958). Ss. 3 & 6 and Martial Law Order No. 7 [M. L. A.'s (Zone C)]-Hoarding and black marketing-Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1956-Applic able only to Karachi and not to any other area-Conviction under such order for an action allegedly taken in area other than Karachi, held, illegal.
Judgment & Decree
Z. A. CHANNA, J.‑This constitutional petition challenges the legality of the trial and the conviction of the detenu, Din Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad, by a Summary Military Court at Hyderabad, under Article 3 of the Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1956. The facts of the case, for the purposes of this petition, shortly stated, are that on i 1‑10‑1978, detenu Din Muhammad was arrested under sections 3 and 6 of the Sind Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, for allegedly being in possession of 9 bags of Atta, said to be Rationed Atta. An F. I. R. was accordingly registered against him at the Market Police Station, Hyderabad, on 27-10‑1978. A challan was thereafter submitted against him before the Summary Military Court at Hyderabad by reason of Martial Law Order No. 7 of the Martial Law Administrator. Zone 'C', which provides that cases relating to Black Market and hoarding as defined in the Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1956, shall be tried by the Military Courts. The Summary Military Court, by its order dated 31‑10‑1978, convicted the detenu of an offence under section 3 of the aforesaid order and sentenced him to imprison ment for 12 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.
3. The short but substantial objection raised by Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, the learned counsel for the detenu, against the latter's conviction and sentence was that the Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1956, which was promulgated by the President under Article 211 of the Constitution of 1956, is applicable only to Karachi, which at the time of Promulgation of the said Order was the Federal Capital, and that as the said order does not extend to Hyderabad, the detenus could not have been legally tried and convict of an offence under that Order. The objection of the learned counsel is unassailable. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, who appears for the State, frankly conceded that as the aforesaid order is applicable only to Karachi, he cannot support the trial and the conviction of the detenu for an action allegedly taken at Hyderabad City.
4. We would accordingly set aside the conviction and the sentence recorded against the detenu by the Summary Military Court and direct that he should be set at liberty if not required in any other case. The fine imposed on him by the Summary Military Court, if paid, should be refunded to him. S.A: H. Petition allowed.