1988 P Cr (PLP)
Sh. MAQBOOL‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OKARA‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Arif, J |
| Parties | Sh. MAQBOOL‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OKARA‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Arif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (Sh. MAQBOOL‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OKARA‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amanat Ali Bukhari for Petitioner.
- Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Detention order‑‑Examination of grounds of detention, in juxtaposition, set up by Authority in detention order and material referred to subsequently in parawise comments was demonstrating irreconcilable difference between the two‑‑Detention order indicated that detenu was a notorious habitual offender and his nefarious activities had caused fear and alarm to general public and has two criminal cases to his discredit, whereas in parawise comments it was stated that accused was involved in four criminal cases and was a notorious narcotics dealer‑‑Grounds of detention furnished in detention order being at variance with submissions made subsequently in parawise comments, detention order, held, suffered from incurable legal infirmity‑‑Order of such detention was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Case F.I.R. No. 17/87, dated 26‑2‑1987, under section Prohibition Order, P.S. 'B' Division Okara. (2) Case F.I.R. No. 40/87, dated 26‑2‑1987 under section 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance P.S. 'B' Division Okara." legality whereof has been challenged in this writ petition by his son.
2. A copy of the petition was handed over to the learned Additional Advocate‑General, who, sought time for getting parawise comments from the respondent, wherein it is stated that four cases have been registered against the detenu viz. (1) Case F.I.B. No. 37, dated 26‑2‑1987 under section Prohibition Ordinance, 1979 P.S. 'B' Division, Okara. (2) Case F.I.R. No. 40, dated 26‑2‑1988 under section 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance P.S. 'A' Division, Okara. (3) Case F.I.R. No. 59, dated 4‑2‑1984, under sections 307/332/353/224, 225/148/149, P.P.C., P.S. 'A' Division, Okara. (4) Case F.I.R. No. 309, dated 19‑11‑1985. under sections 409/109/201/161, P.P.C., 14/.6/79 Islamic Law and 5/2/47 P.C.A., P.S.'A' Division Okara " and that he is a notorious narcotics dealer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner are at variance with the submissions made by the respondent in the parawise comments and the latter were not taken into consideration while issuing the detention order.
4. A juxtaposition examination of the grounds of detention set out in the detention order and the material referred to in the parawise comments demonstrates the irreconcilable difference between the two, in that, in the form it is stated that the detenu is a notorious Rassagir/habitual offender, and has two criminal cases to his discredit; whereas in the parawise comments, it is stated that he is involved in tour criminal cases, and is a notorious narcotics dealer. Furthermore, the particulars of the matter involve liberty of a citizen of the country.
5. For the aforegoing reasons, I have come to an irresistible conclusion that the impugned order suffers from incurable legal infirmity, thus is without lawful authority; and accordingly is hereby set aside; consequently, if the detenu is not required in any other; case, he should be set at liberty forthwith. H.B.T./M‑951/L Petition accepted.