Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
C. M. A. No. 1392 in Constitutional Petition No. 764 of 1973, decided on 21st July 1973.
S. 8(2)‑Subsection (2) of S. 8 expressly empowering Tribunal to order detention, order passed under such provision an order of detention.
‑‑ S. 13(g)‑Person can be declared "goonda" only if "frequently drunk and disorderly in public"‑Such person has to be both drunk and disorderly in public and also frequently.
S. 13‑Practices and instances alleged against person even though satisfying test of section 13; yet he cannot be automatically detained- Declaration of a person as Goonda‑Does not by itself expose him to hazards of imprisonment ‑ Proceedings before Tribunal‑Deemed to be judicial proceedings ‑ Tribunal must satisfy itself regarding establishment of conditions requisite to detention before passing order of detention‑West Pakistan (Control of Goondas) Ordinance (XXXV of 1959), S. 8.
Ss. 5, 8 & 13‑Power of detention ‑ Limitation and scope ‑Tribunal on receipt of information under S. 13‑Can detain a person, pending inquiry, only ion being satisfied of person complained against failing to appear before it or not to be of good behaviour until proceedings ended in final decision‑Satisfaction of Tribunal‑Must be objective satisfaction supported by material on record‑Detention orders‑Cannot be passed solely on basis of information lodged under S. 5‑Tribunal passing detention order solely on basis of informa tion lodged by police‑Abdicates its own duties and acts illegally.
S. 13‑Person convicted under S. 13‑Cannot be jailed because of such conviction‑Tribunal consequently under obligation to dispose of inquiry expeditiously if order of detention passed‑Failure to do so‑May prima facie amount to legal mala fides.
< [if supportLists]>-
< [if supportLists]>- S. 13 read with S. 5‑Allegations made against person though falling under various clauses of S. 13 yet information given relating to only three instances) (i) conviction in gambling cases of 1965 imposing merely fine;. (ii) arrest in theft case in 1963; (iii) challan under S. 216‑A, P. P. C. in 1969 with unknown result‑No specific details being available and nothing indicating relevance or nexus with type of conduct coming within mischief of S. 13, allegations, held, irrelevant to proceedings ‑ General practices imputed to person charged not being supported by instances, detention order, held, not sustainable.
S. 8‑Order under section‑Not sustainable unless imminent danger of detenu's disappearance in order to frustrate inquiry existing or reasonable apprehension existing of detenu's misbehaving during pendency of proceedings.
‑‑‑S. 8‑Fact of allegations against detenu being of a serious nature Irrelevant to construction of S. 8 ‑Nor a good ground for refusing bail.
‑ S. 8‑Bail refused on ground of witnesses not having been examined and application being premature ‑ Nor examination of witnesses, held, no fault of detenu but one of police and Tribunal‑Delay, held, amounts to legal malice‑Ordinance not envisaging detention without inquiry‑Bail allowed.
Abdul Sattar Pirzada for Petitioner.
Additional Advocate‑General for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th July 1973. .
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer