WAHEED GUL Versus SAIDA JAN
1. MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.‑‑‑- By this judgment we propose to dispose of Writ Petition No.76 of 1996 and Writ Petition No.77 of 1996, as both the writ petitions involve common question of law and facts.
2. Inayatullah, petitioner, in Writ Petition No.76 of 1996, Shakeel Farooq and Shahid Khan, petitioners in Writ Petition No.77 of 1996, have challenged their detention orders, dated 25‑9‑1996 and 30‑9‑1996 issued by District Magistrate, Bannu, whereby the petitioners were arrested and ordered to be detained in Central Jail D.I. Khan for a period of thirty days, to be illegal and without lawful authority.
3. Inayatullah petitioner has alleged that he was running a printing Press known as "Kurram Printing Press" situated in Tanchi Bazar, Bannu City; that on 15‑9‑1996 as case under section 4196420/468/470/471/472/475, P.P.C. was registered against Shakeel Farooq and Mumtaz in Police Station City Bannu, on the allegations that they were publishing and selling bogus/fake certificates of a religious institution of Multan; that during the investigation the petitioner was also named as an accused in the statement of the above accused that the fake certificates were also printed in the Press of the petitioner; that the petitioner's Press was raided wherefrom certain moulded blocks were allegedly recovered; that after his arrest the petitioners applied for his release on bail to the Judicial Magistrate, but in vain. Then he applied in the Court of Sessions, where his application was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 28‑9‑1996 and he was allowed bail; that during the pendency of the bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, the District Magistrate, Bannu, respondent No. 1, passed an order of detention of the petitioner under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 on 25‑9‑1996 in pursuance whereof the petitioner was shifted to Central Jail, D.I. Khan.
4. Shakeel Farooq and Shahid Khan, petitioners in Writ Petition No.77 of 1996, have alleged that Shakeel Farooq was the Proprietor of Naveed Printing Press, Tanchi Bazar Bannu City, while Shahid Khan was his servant; that on 15‑9‑1996 a case F.I.R. No.668 was registered against Shakeel Farooq and Mumtaz Khan in Police Station, Bannu City on the allegations that they were printing and selling bogus/fake certificates of Wafaqul Madaris Al‑Arbia Pakistan Multan, in consequence whereto both the petitioners were arrested; that Shakeel Farooq was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu on 28‑9‑1996 while Shahid Khan was released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate/S.C.J., Bannu on 30‑9‑1996; that respondent No.1 issued detention orders, dated 25‑9‑1996 and 30‑9‑1996 of Shakeel Farooq and Shahid Khan respectively, under section. 3, M.P. O. and were sent to Central Jail D. I. Khan; that the grounds of detention' were supplied later to the petitioners in Central Jail, D.I. Khan.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file.
6. The District Magistrate, Bannu issued two similar orders on 25‑9‑1996 for detention of Inayatullah and Shakeel Farooq while the third identical order was issued on 30‑9‑1996, out of which one is reproduced as under:‑‑
2. "Copy of the order worthy Deputy Commissioner, Bannu No.3666 69/Reader/MPO/PA, dated 25‑9‑1996.
3. ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SECTION (3) OF THE WEST PAKISTAN MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER, 1960
4. Whereas I have reasons to believe. that you anayat allah son of haji fazal qadar resident of has acted and continue act in a Manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order and:
5. Whereas, I am of the opinion that with a view to preventing you from .acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of peaceful condition in ‑the District, it is necessary to detain you;
6. Now, therefore, I Arbau Muhammad Arif, District Magistrate, Bannu in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order, f960 do hereby order your detention in custody of the Superintendent, Central Jail, D.I. Khan for a period of thirty (30) days.
7. The period of your detention will start from the time of your arrest and detention. The grounds bf detention will be communicated to you within the prescribed period.
8. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day 25th September, 1996.
9. (Sd.)
10. District Magistrate, Bannu.
11. No. /Reader/MPO Dated 25‑9‑1996
12. Copies to:‑‑
13. 2.
14. 3.
15. 4.
16. (Sd.)
17. District Magistrate, Bannu
18. The grounds of detention under section 3, M.P.O. conveyed to Inayatullah detenu are reproduced as under:‑‑
19. OFFICE, OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANNU
20. No. 1272/Reader(M. P.O.),
21. Dated 3‑10‑1996.
22. To
23. Mr. Inayatullah son of Haji Fazal Qadir,
24. Resident of Near Milad Park Owner of Kurram Printing
25. Press, Tanchi Bazar.
26. Through The Superintendent Central Prison,
27. D. I. Khan.
28. Sub: GROUNDS OF DETENTION UNDER SECTION 3, M.P.O.
29. You are hereby informed that the grounds of issuing order of your detention, dated .... under section 3(i) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance of 1960 are as under:‑‑
(1) That you have been charged with printing of fake/bogus certificates of Deeni Board Wafaqul Madaris AI Arbia, Multan and a Case vide F.I.R. No.668, dated 15‑9‑1996 under section 406/419/420/468/471/472/473/ 474/475, P.P.C. Police Station City District Bannu, 'registered against you.
(2) That religious circles in the District have shown resentment over your involvement in the case and your detention was necessary for maintenance of peace and tranquillity in the District.
(3) that due to such activities the religious circles and the general public is feeling certain apprehensions at your hands.
30. I am satisfied and firmly believe in view of your past activities that you are likely, if at liberty, to continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of peaceful conditions in the area.
31. The above grounds of detention are 'being communicated to you, to enable you, if you wish so to make representation to the Provincial Government against the order of your detention.
32. (Sd.) .
33. District Magistrate, Bannu".
34. In the above background and in order to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order, it deems necessary to quote section 3 of the Ordinance (ibid):‑‑
35. "3. Power to arrest and detain suspected person.‑‑ (1) Government, if satisfied that with a view to preventing any person from acting in any, manner prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, may, by an order in writing, direct the arrest and detention in such custody as may be prescribed under subsection (7), of such person for such period as may, subject to the other provisions of this section, be specified in the order, and Government, if satisfied that for the aforesaid reason it is. necessary so to do, may extend from time to time, the period of such detention, for a period not extending six months at a time."
36. The pre‑requisite condition for issuance of an order under tile aforesaid section is that the Government has to satisfy that a person is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or maintenance of public order and then to direct the arrest and detention of that person for a specified period. It implies that satisfaction of the Government with regard to the conduct of the person likely to act in a prejudicial manner must be objective in nature and not subjective so as to allow the executive authorities to act on their own fancies. There must be sufficient material before the authority to act upon it so as to justify passing an order of detention. In these cases allegations against the petitioners are that they acted and continue to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety and public order. In the grounds of detention it. has been alleged that they have been charged with printing of fake/bogus certificates of Deeni Board Wafaqul Madaris Al‑Arbia, Multan and a case vide F.I.R. No.668, dated 15‑9‑1996 under sections 406/419/420/468/471 to 475, P.P.C. Police Station City Bannu has been registered. It was further alleged that the religious circles in the District have shown resentment over the petitioners' involvement in the case and. therefore, their detention was necessary for maintenance of peace and tranquillity in the District. Except for the registration of the case as aforesaid, the allegations were not supported by any direct or indirect evidence, and thus i they were vague and unfounded which render the detention orders to be against the legal norms. There has been registered a criminal case against the detenus for printing fake and bogus certificates of a Deeni Madrassa, the detenus would face trial and if they are found guilty of the offence, they would be convicted and sentenced by a competent Court of law. In that case all the three detenus have been allowed bail. That case cannot be made a ground for detention of the detenus, for which Courts of law are available to adjudicate the case in accordance with law.
7. It is noteworthy that the detention order issued against Shakeel Farooq, detenu, on its top right bears the date "15‑9‑1996" while at the right bottom the date has been written as 25‑9‑1996, and all the detention orders have been passed on pro formas in which the blanks have been filled in by handwriting. When criminal cases had been registered against the detenus for substantive offences, their preventive detention after their release on bail, was neither proper) nor justifiable. Not even a single person who had allegedly shown his resentment over the involvement of the detenus in the case of printing fake I certificates, was examined to substantiate the allegations. The respondents failed to produce any material except for the criminal case registered against the detenus, which was not sufficient for pass of an order of detention of a citizen. The detention orders have been passed in a mechanical manner on the so‑called resentment of the religious circles in the District without application of independent judicious mind. The blanks of the stereotyped pro formas were filled in hand and the same were executed to achieve the underlying, designs. In case of Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Government of Punjab reported in 1994 SCMR 1532, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that "before an act is held to be prejudicial to public order, it must be shown that the act or activity is likely to affect the public at large. As a corollary, therefore, it follows that an act which concerns only to an individual and does not amount to an activity prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity cannot fall within the ambit of section 3 of the Ordinance". It was further observed in the same judgment that "In the case before us, the petitioner has been charged with the activity of extending threats to the Consulate‑General of U.S. at Lahore. The police in this connection has already registered a case against him under sections 182/211/ 225/225‑B and 506, P.P.C. under F.I.R. No. 173, dated 28‑8‑1993. This clearly shows that the detenu was accused of substantive offences under the penal law and, therefore, preventive detention on the same allegation could not be justified in law".
37. In view of the above, we do not find that the allegations against the detenus constitute activity which can be said to be prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order. At the most they have committed offences for which they are already charged and they have to face prosecution for the same, as such their preventive detention in the circumstances was unwarranted in law. Consequently, we accept these writ petitions, set aside/quash the impugned detention orders to be without lawful authority and unjustifiable. The petitioners were set at liberty vide our short order, dated 9‑10‑1996 and this judgment provides the reasons for the same.
38. M.A.K./2144/P Petition dismissed.