Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1816 of 1973, decided on 17th September 1973.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-

- S. 561-A read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199(I)(a)(i)-Prayer in writ petition that "Superintendent of Police be directed to refrain from beating and injuring by himself or his subordinates, peaceful citizens indulging in peaceful protest demonstrations against State"-Such vague prayer which talks of citizens in general cannot be advanced-Each case to be decided on its own merits.

Each case is to be attended to on its own merits and confined to its own facts. Such a vague prayer, which talks of citizens, in general in a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution and section 561-A of the Cr. P. C., cannot be advanced.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-

Art. 199(1)(a)(i) & (c)-Detention-Nothing prima facie to show that detention conditions were against provision of any law at time of filing of writ petition-No cause to attend to such matter.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-

Art. 199(1)(a)(i) & (c)-Detention - Prayer for summoning detenu in Court to explain how injuries came to be caused to him and what his manner of detention was - Prayer not made by aggrieved person but by a third person-Not admissible in circumstances-Past mistreatment alleged-Petition for correction of manner of detention in retrospect-Not maintainable-Remedy lay elsewhere-Regularization of conditions of detenu under Art. 199 Pertains to future detention onward from date of petition or when order to be passed.

Mian Mahmud Ali Kasuri for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 17th September 1973.

This is an application by Kh. Muhammad Safdar Senator President -of United Democratic Front Punjab, with regard to the arrest and .detention of Ghulam Shabbir son of Hafiz Muhammad Bakhsh, Caste Bhatti, R/o Mauza Barha, P. S. Rullanwali, District Muzaffargarh, herein after called the prisoner. The prisoner was arrested on 12th September 1973, when he was carrying a placard in Anarkali. It is admitted that an "order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was in operation in Lahore at the relevant time. The learned counsel has not challenged the legality of that "Order" in the writ petition, though at the Bar he has stated in a general form without specifying any ground that the legality of the said Order was not being admitted. It is, however, conceded by the learned counsel that the prisoner was to stage a civil disobedience and volunteer arrest though the petitioner was not in a position to state whether at the relevant time when the prisoner was arrested, there were -four, five or more persons at the spot in a procession or not. In my opinion as the petitioner is a President of the Civil Disobedience Movement, and was organising the same, I am not prepared to accept that he did not know the details as to in what manner the prisoner was arrested. The application in this respect, which withheld the necessary material, has not inspired my confidence.

2. The next point argued was that after the arrest, the prisoner was given beating by the Police and that on the next date i.e., 13th September 1973, the prisoner was taken to Kot Lakhpat jail. It is argued that the, conditions in Kot Lakhpat Jail are horrible and neither it is a fit place for the detention of any person nor otherwise it contains necessary amenities. There is nothing before me to subscribe to such a view and mere statement, in such general terms cannot be accepted.

3. Learned counsel then drew my attention to relief No. (iii) claimed by, his client in the petition which reads as follows: -

"The respondent No. 2 (who is The Superintendent of Police), may b directed to refrain from beating and injuring by himself or his sub ordinates peaceful citizens indulging in peaceful protest demonstra tions against the State."

Each case is to be attended to on its own merits and confined to its ow facts. Such a vague prayer, which talks of citizens in general in a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution and section 561-A of the Cr. P. C., in my opinion, cannot be advanced.

4. Learned counsel then referred to prayer No. (ii) claimed in the writ petition. It reads as follows: -

"That the Court may be pleased to order that the detenu be examined at any major hospital of Lahore like the Mayo Hospital and be directed to be admitted there and medically treated."

So far as the medical examination of the prisoner is concerned, it is mentioned in the petition itself that he was examined by a doctor in the jail who found 15 injuries but the doctor did not mention the other injuries for which the detenu complained of on account of unbearable pain. In my opinion the petitioner would have been well advised to move the jail authorities for further examination if he was really so concerned and a prayer for this purpose for the first time in this Court is misconceived. At this stage the learned counsel submitted that such a move was made but without a: success. There is neither averment in the petition nor any deposition in the attached affidavit to this effect. The petition is not accompanied by a copy' of any order of any jail authority and for all these reasons I am not in a. position to accept it.

5. Reference was then made to Prayer No. 1, which reads as follows: ---

"The aforesaid detenu may kindly be summoned in Court and examined in respect of the legality of his detention and the regularity of the conditions of detention."

I have already expressed my view on both these matters and need not repeat the same. I have in the above paragraphs dealt with the three prayers of the: petitioner in the order in which they were argued before me.

6. Learned counsel lastly submitted it was a case in which the detenu was earlier given beating by the Police and though now he was in jail, he: is making a petition that he may be summoned in Court so that he may explain (a) as to how these injuries were caused to him and (b) what was the: present manner of his detention. To correct the learned counsel, this is not a petition by the detenu but by a third person. Be that as it may, as regards the manner of the detention, I am of the view that if there is nothing prima facie before the Court to show that the detention JP conditions (at the time when the prayer is being made), are against the provisions of any law then there is no cause to attend to that matter. This is a case of that type. However, with regard to any past alleged maltreat ment, since the stage for that was over, a petition for correction of the manner in retrospect was not maintainable, and for that remedy of per so concerned lay elsewhere which it was for him to find and not for me t advise. The regularization of the conditions of the detenu under Article 199 of the Constitution, pertains to future detention onward from the date when the petition is filed or when the order is to be passed and there cannot be regularisation in that sense with any retrospective operation.

7. Not being convinced of the bona fide of this application, which dice not disclose relevant facts, and which is too general in its scope, for the reasons hereinbefore mentioned. I am not prepared to admit it and dismiss, the same in limine.

s. A. H. Petition dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.