ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus HAJI JAMIL AHMED

The petitioner in this case was detained under section 3 of the M:P.O. 1960 for a period of 90 days by the District Magistrate, Okara. The order detaining the petitioner reads as hereunder:

"The Superintendent of Police Okara has recommended the detention of Muhammad Mansha son of Moolha caste Camar, resident of Tetha Roshan ka‑PS Gogera District Okara under section 3 of the MPO for 3 months.

2. I have gone through the criminal record of the abovementioned person who has been challaned in 5 different cases during the year 1989. The detail of conviction is as under:

F.I:R. No.207/89 under section 41, P:P.C. P.S. Gogera‑convicted

" " 208/289" " " "

3. I have gone through the report of the Superintendent of Police, Okara, and have also discussed the matter with him. From the Police reports, I am satisfied that he is still active in anti‑social activities. It appears that Muhammad Mansha habitually indulges in activities which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity. Keeping in view his previous record and present activities, I feel that it is necessary to detain him under section 3 of MPO,1960.

4. Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 3 MPO, 1960 vide Government of Punjab, Home Department's notification No.3‑I‑H‑Spl‑1/74, dated 20‑1‑1973 read with section 26 of this said Order, 1, Imtiaz Ahmad Sadiq, District Magistrate Okara hereby direct that the said Muhammad Mansha should be arrested forthwith and detained in the custody of the Central Jail, Sahiwal for a period of 90 days from the date of service of this order.

5. A copy of the order along with Memo of grounds of detention enclosed herewith shall be delivered to said Muhammad Mansha while serving the order on him. He is at liberty to make a representation to the Government of Punjab, against this order.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 24th day of August, 1991.

(Sd.) Imtiaz Ahmad Sadiq,

District Magistrate, Okara.

2. Through this writ petition, the detention of the petitioner has been challenged, and in pursuance of the direction of this Court, the relevant material for the detention of the petitioner has been placed on record. The material reveals that detenu/petitioner was convicted in two cases, while he was acquitted in three cases. Record further shows that he was involved in five different criminal cases.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has controverted this fact by stating that the petitioner was never convicted in any case. Numbers of the F.I.Rs given in the certificate produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner correspondent with the numbers mentioned in that detention order. This circumstance alone shows that the detaining authority did not apply its mind properly as it ought to have been. There is no nexus with the grounds of the detention of the petitioner. Furthermore, mere pendency of the criminal cases even otherwise is no ground to detain a person under the Detention Law. I am fortified in this view with the judgment reported as PLD 1973 Kar. 78 and also another judgment reported as PLD 1988 Lah. 611. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith u not required in any other case. In these circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

N.H.Q./,N‑58/L Petition accepted.