Mst. RUKHSANA BIBI vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION CANTT. MULTAN and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition filed under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking a search, recovery, and production warrant for a minor allegedly detained improperly after being snatched from the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court and its benches to entertain a habeas corpus or section 491 petition when the detenue is detained in an area attached to the Principal Seat rather than the place from where the minor was removed. The Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the place where the detenue is allegedly illegally or improperly detained, making the place of removal immaterial, and that the petition should thus be filed either before the local Sessions Judge or at the Principal Seat. The key principle laid down is that territorial jurisdiction for habeas corpus and section 491 petitions is governed by the location of the detention, and High Court benches exercise jurisdiction according to administrative attachment of districts for litigant convenience.
- Does territorial jurisdiction for a habeas corpus petition depend on the place of removal or the place where the detenue is detained?
- Can a petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be filed before any bench regardless of where the detenue is kept?
- Do Sessions Judges in the Province of Punjab exercise powers under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a warrant for search, recovery and production of minor Iman Kalsoom aged about one year. It is contended that the minor was born out of the wedlock between her and respondent No,2. It is alleged that on 7-10-2012, the respondents Nos.2 to 4 forcibly snatched the minor from the petitioner, who was living in the house of her brother at Multan and had removed her to Chak No,35/36-ML District Bhakkar, where she has been kept under improper custody.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court has the jurisdiction for whole of the Province of Punjab and that the minor was removed from .Multan so the petition may be filed before this Bench. In support of the contention raised, reliance is placed on PLD 2011 SC 17.
3. The minor is allegedly detained in Chak No,35/36-ML Tehsil Kaloor Kot District Bhakkar. District Bhakkar is attached with the Principal Seat of this 'Court. There is no cavil to the proposition that all the areas in the Province of Punjab fall within the appellate criminal jurisdiction of this Court but different are as are attached with the Principal Seat and Benches of this Court keeping in view the convenience of the litigant public. A petition under section 491, Cr.P.C., can be filed before the Court in the appellate criminal jurisdiction of which the detenue is illegally or improperly detained. As the place, where, the minor is allegedly improperly detained, is attached with the Principal Seat so it is expedient for the ends of justice that the petition be filed at the Principal Seat. The place of removal is immaterial for the purposes of jurisdiction to hear the petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. Or habeas petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The case-law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable on the facts of the present petition. Even otherwise this Court has authorized the Sessions Judges/Additional Sessions Judges in the Province of Punjab to exercise the powers under section 491, Cr.P.C., vide Notifications Nos.58/RHC dated 18-4-2002, 351- JOB(1)VI.F.6 dated 23-11-2009 and 114-JOB(1).VI.F.6 dated 20-5-2010 in respect of the areas falling within their jurisdiction. The petitioner may file the application before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar or at the Principal Seat, if so as desired/advised. With this petition stands disposed of.