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.
Constitutional Petition No. 650 of 1976, decided on 26th October 1976.
‑‑ S. 3(6)‑Interval of 11 days between date of detention and date of communication to detenu of grounds of detention‑No reasons shown for such abnormal delay‑Order of detention, held, invalid and hence quashed.‑[Preventive detention].
Muhammad Younus v. Province of Sind P I. D 1973 Kar. 694 ant, Ghularn Ullah Khan v. District Magistrate, Campbellpur P L D 1967 Pesh. 195 ref.
Azizutlah Shaikh with A. R. Khan for Petitioner.
Ghulam Ali‑Memon, A.‑G. (Sind) for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing : 26th October 1976.
This petition is directed against an order, dated X14‑10‑1976, passed by the Government of Sind, directing the detention of detenu Muhammad Yusuf son of Haji Moosa, for a period of three months under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Sind Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 196(), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance.
2. In pursuance of the provisions of clause (5) of section 10 of the Constitution and subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance, the detenu was supplied with grounds of detention on 25‑i 0‑1976 that is 11 days after the order of detention was passed against him and the detenu was actually placed under detention. Subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance originally provided that the grounds of detention were to be supplied or furnished to the deteau, as soon as may be, but not later than 15 days from the date of detention. However, the words "but not later than 15 days from the date of detention" were omitted by West Pakistan Ordinance No. XVIII of 1964. The position, therefore, is that the grounds of detention have to be furnished to the detenu "as soon as may be". In the case reported in P L D 1973 Kar. 694, it was held that undue delay in the communication ,of grounds of detention is infringement of the statutory requirement contained in subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance and renders the very detention invalid. Reference was made in that case to the unreported decision in the case of Liaquat Ali v. The Government of Sind, where a similar view was taken and the delay of 15 days in communicating the grounds of detention was held to invalidate the detention itself. Reference may also be made to the case reported in P L D 1967 Pesh. 195, which was relied upon in the Karachi case. In the Peshawar case, it was hold that the grounds of detention under subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance should ordinarily be served alongivith the order of detention under subsection (1) but in exceptional cases within 24 hours of the order.
3. In the instant case, as already pointed out, there has been an interval of 11 days between the detention of the detenu and the communica tion to him of the grounds of detention. No reasons have been shown for this abnormal delay, which we consider, in the circumstances of the case, to be contrary to the provisions of subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance. The learned Advocate‑General concedes that the delay in the communication of the grounds, by reason of the authorities which we have just referred to, would render the order of detention invalid.
4. We accordingly hold that the order of detention passed in respect .of the detenu, Mohammad Yusuf, is invalid and would quash the same. In the result, the petition is allowed but with no order as to costs and we direct that the detenu be forthwith released, unless he is required in any other case.
S. Q. Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer