1989 PLP 2700 (MLD)
ABDUL RASHID Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OKARA, and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2700 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OKARA, and 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 PLP 2700 (MLD)?
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 PLP 2700 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Irshad Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2700 (MLD) (ABDUL RASHID Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OKARA, and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3(i)--Mere fact that detenu was facing prosecution in a number of cases, held was not a valid ground for detention. Muhammad Abdullah v. District Magistrate 1988 P Cr. L J 1087 ref. Rana Muhammad Arif, A.A: G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(5) -do- 73 Under Article 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. (6) -do- 345 Under section 325/148/149 (7) -do- 188 Under sections 447 (8) -do- 185 Under section 307/148/149 (9) -do- 21 Under section 435/336/379 (10) -do- 415 Under section 336/307/148/149 Out of these cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted in two cases, namely, F.I.R. No. 188/78 and 185/79. On the basis of this recommendation, the learned District Magistrate, Okara, passed the impugned order against the detenu.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the grounds for detention were not supplied to the petitioner alongwith the detention order and, therefore, on this score alone, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Rana Muhammad Arif, Assistant Advocate-General refuted the assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner and produced the record, which shows that the grounds were supplied to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the mere fact that the detenu was facing prosecution in a number of cases is not a sufficient ground to detain him under section 3(i) of the Ordinance. I am inclined to agree with his submission that the mere fact that the detenu was facing prosecution in a number of cases is not a valid ground for his detention under section 3(i) of the Ordinance. If the concerned authorities make a choice to prosecute for offence, the same cannot be a ground for detention of the detenu under the Ordinance. This view finds support from the Division Bench judgment in Muhammad Abdullah v. District Magistrate 1988 P Cr. L J 1087. Apart from this, the record does not show that the detaining authority had applied his independent mind as to whether on the mere ground that he was facing prosecution in some cases, he could be detained. In view of the above, the impugned order of the District Magistrate, Okara, dated 25-2-1989 is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The detenu shall be released forthwith if not required in any case. There shall however, be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A-600/L Petition allowed.