MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Vide order, dated 29‑9‑1997 this Court came to the conclusion that the detenu was deprived of his liberty in a fanciful manner not warranted by the law and following observations were made:
"From the record I find that the detenu has been deprived of his liberty in an unlawful manner. Learned Magistrate has mechanically passed the order without applying his mind to the report presented before him. Even the report of S.H.O. does not inspire confidence. Office is directed to issue sh6w‑cause notice to A.D.M. and S.H.O. concerned as to why they should not be saddled with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000 for depriving the petitioner of his liberty by misusing their lawful authority. The case is adjourned to 16‑10‑1997."
2. In reply to the show‑cause notice both S.H.O. and A.D.M. have filed their reply on the last date of hearing and both of them were in attendance. Today only S.H.O., Market Police Station Jacobabad is in attendance i.e. the police officer who had filed the report which was the basis of the order of detention subsequently declared to be illegal and unlawful. In coming to such conclusion this Court was ably assisted by Mr. Zawar Hussain Jaffri, Additional Advocate‑General who had without any reservation conceded that the order passed by learned Additional District Magistrate was patently unlawful, no specific allegations were levelled against the detenu and that the detenu was deprived of his liberty in an unlawful manner.
3. In rejoinder to the reply filed by the Additional District Magistrate and S. H. O. detenu Muhammad Akram has filed his affidavit, on 24‑10‑1997.
4. I have gone through the record and have perused the reply of learned Additional District Magistrate and the S.H.O. concerned.
5. Additional District Magistrate in paragraph 4 of the reply has stated as follows:
"(4) That on receipt of the report from the police, this Court had taken the cognizance of the matter and served the petitioner (Muhammad Akram) with the show‑cause notice and in my humble view the instances cited by the prosecution and documents produced with the report were sufficient to take cognizance in the matter and I have acted in a judicial manner."
6. In the matters pertaining to the detention a very heavy burden lies on the shoulders of the Magistrate concerned. He has to satisfy himself that the information laid before him with the specific purpose of depriving liberty of a citizen requires more than suspicion. The Courts are the guardian of the liberties of citizens and that also includes the Court of Additional District Magistrate. In fact the prime duty of every Court always has been to assess an information and the evidence in support of information, before it is ordered by the Court to take away the liberty of the citizen concerned. Unless there be an information backed by concrete data leading to the conclusion that unless the detention order is passed, the detenu will play havoc in the society, the order taking away the liberty, may, in ordinary course, be not passed. It has been stated in the order of the Court dated 29‑9‑1997 that no such concrete data was available, therefore, order passed by the Additional District Magistrate was set aside. For this reason I am constrained to hold that the learned Additional District Magistrate did not apply his mind when he passed the order mechanically as held earlier, denied petitioner of his liberty.
7. As regard explanation of S.H.O. is concerned, he has stated that there are many entries against the detenu in Roznamcha register of various police stations. Such information was not laid before the learned Additional District Magistrate in his report which is available on record as Annexure "A‑3" I would, therefore, hold that he has improved upon the case, in reply to show -cause notice and such information was not disclosed nor was laid before Additional District Magistrate. Similarly in the copies of different first information reports there is no allegation that the applicant is eve‑teaser. Even in the Roznamcha that have been placed on record nowhere it has been alleged as such against the detenu, nor it has been stated by S.H.O. in his report to the learned Additional District Magistrate. This allegation, therefore, on the face of it was a concoction and has no factual basis. I would not like to comment upon the first information reports mentioned in the police report as such comment one way or the other may prejudice the case filed against the detenu.
8. This Court has repeatedly held that the uniform personnel are the officers or the persons responsible to prevent crime and to ensure peace and tranquillity in the society. If such personnel, on whom heavy burden is cast to conduct their affairs in accordance with law, behave in a manner not warranted by law, the peace and tranquillity in the society would only be a dream rather than reality. The accused/detenu even if he is a crook is entitled to his legal rights. No order can be passed even against a crook of highest order, depriving of his liberty on the flimsy grounds. Even a worst criminal in the society is entitled to legal safeguards and his legal rights cannot be taken away in a slipshod manner. Of all the legal rights, the right to liberty is placed on a higher pedestal, and to be respected by all and the sundry.
9. Needless to say that if an officer travels beyond his lawful authority or exceeds such legal limits, goes outside the jurisdiction, therefore, protection/ immunity ordinarily available to such person in law, could not be claimed by him. In my such conclusion, I am supported by the judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Muhammad Ali and others v. Pakistan PLD 1961 (W.P.) Kar.
88. Moreover, excesses against the citizens are on the rise and power conferred on police personnel in law is misused and flagrantly abused.
10. I am compelled to take note of erosion of; positive values in social set- up, loss of moral directions, development of culture of corruption, ever -increasing and unbridled tendency of abuse of power and lack of complete accountability in almost all walks of life (In this case there is no accountability of S.FI.O., nor that of Additional District Magistrate). Such opinion although to different context is also expressed by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Sharif and others v. The State 1997 SCMR 304. In such eventuality, to curb such tendency it is duty of the Court to pass such orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice.
11. For these reasons I find that the explanation given by the Additional District Magistrate and the S.H.O. concerned is not convincing. This Court has already held that detention of the detenu to be illegal and his imprisonment as false imprisonment, and since the petitioner has been deprived of his liberty for about 8 days I would, therefore, impose compensatory costs on both S.H.O. and Additional District Magistrate as both of them while placing the information‑and while acting oil such information travelled beyond the lawful limits assigned to them in law. They are saddled with costs of Rs.4,000 each. This amount shall be deposited in the Court and after such deposit it shall be released to the detenu on proper verification. The amount is to be deposited within two weeks. In case the amount is not deposited, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the persons mentioned in this order.
H.B.T./M‑238/K Order accordingly.