FAKIR KHAN JADOON Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner is the brother of detenu Saif‑ur Rehman alias Safura, who was arrested under section 3(1) of the Sind Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) in pursuance of an order dated 11‑2‑1988. Passed by the respondent No. 2 for a period of 30 days w.e.f. 11‑2‑1988. In support of the above order in the ground 17 criminal cases were mentioned in which the detenu is involved and which pertain to the years commencing from 1967 to 1987 under the various penal statutes namely, Gambling Act, P.P.C. and M.L.Os. It seems that a fresh order dated 10th March, 1988 was passed by the respondent No. 1. The grounds of detention were annexed to the above order. The above order was extended w.e.f. 27‑3‑1988 for a further period of 15 days. The petitioner had impugned the first order by this petition. Upon passing of the second order, the petitioner amended the petition and after the extension of the second order, the petition was further amended.

2. In support of the above petition, Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged as follows:‑‑

(i) That there is no nexus between cases mentioned in the grounds and the grounds on which the detenu was detained.

(ii) That in any case no material has been placed by the respondents to indicate that the detenu is a narcotics dealer, which is one of the grounds mentioned in the grounds and as the above ground is not sustainable the entire order is liable to be knocked.

On the other hand Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned A.A.‑G. has submitted that the detenu has been involved in a number of cases and, therefore, the impugned order was justified. However, he has not been able to satisfy us on the question that there is no material in support of the ground the detenu is a narcotics dealer. It may be advantageous to reproduce the grounds which are annexed to the detention order and which read as follows:‑‑

"(a) That you are a notorious bad character and an anti‑social element of the area.

(b) That you are a narcotics dealer and run number of gambling dens.

(c) That you have a criminal record as follows:‑‑

(i) F.I.R. No. 57/67 under section 380/34, P.P.C of P.S. Docks.

(ii) F.I.R. No. 9/68 under section 379, P.P.C. of P.S. Docks.

(iii) F.I.R. No. 1/69 under section 6, Gambling Ord. of P.S. Jackson.

(iv) F.I.R. No. 20/73 under section 324, P.P.C. of P.S. Jackson.

(v) F.I.R. No. 118/76 under section 401/307, P.P.C. of P.S. Docks.

(vi) F.I.R. No. 44/70 under section 307, P.P.C. of P.S. Jackson.

(vii) F.R.A. No. 179/75 under section 411, P.P.C. of P.S. TPX.

(viii) F.I.R. No. 51 /73 under section 457/380, P.P.C. of P.S. Docks.

(ix) F.I.R. No. 119/76 under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance of P.S. Docks.

(xi) F.I.R. No. 76/85 under section 147/148/506, P.P.C. of P.S. Docks.

(xii) F.I.R. No. X/85 under section 14, S.C.C. Act of P.S. Jackson.

(xiii) F.I.R. No. X/77 under section 12, M.L.O. dated 25‑7‑1977 of P.S. Jackson.

(xiv) F.I.R. No. X/87 under section 4/5, Gambling Ordinance of P.S. Jackson.

(xv) F.I.R. No. 330/87 under section 148/149/307/332/22A/225, P.P.C. of

(xvi) P.S.Jackson.

3. It is an admitted position that none of the cases mentioned under sub para `C' relates to an offence relating to narcotics nor there is any material placed before us, which may indicate that the detenu has been dealing in narcotics.

4. In this view of the matter since the ground that the detenu is narcotics A dealer is not supported by any material on record brought by the respondents, the above order is liable to be declared as being without lawful authority. If reference is needed the case of Kamal Haider v. The District Magistrate. East Karachi and 4 others reported in 1988 P Cr. L J 486 may be referred m which a Division Bench of this Court while construing section 3(1) of the Ordinance inter alia has held that one of grounds of detention was found to be vitiated as it would be hard to determine, which of the grounds, had led to the passing of the detention order or whether same was the result of all the grounds taken together. Incidentally we may mention that in the above journal the only name of Mamoon Kazi, J. has been mentioned though the case has been decided by a Division Bench compromised of learned Chief Justice and Mamoon Kazi, J. The above case is binding on us.

We, therefore, allow the petition and the order of detention is declared

;,5 being ~.. eased forthwith if not required in any other case.

` F.‑74 /h Proceedings quashed.