Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 2415 of 1975, heard on 10th October 1975.

‑‑ S. 5(1)(b)‑Order of detention‑Restriction imposed on detenu not to leave specified area except with permission of detaining autho rity‑Held, can be relaxed to extent of permitting him to attend Court proceedings.‑[Preventive detention].

‑‑ S. 5(1)(b) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Detenu already facing trial for murder‑Authorities concerned, held, cannot use same offence as ground of preventive detention under Ordinance.

Muhammad Younus v. Province of Sind P L D 1974 Kar. 694 and Liaquat Ali ‑v. Government of Sind P L D 1973 Kar. 78 ref.

‑‑ S. 5(l)(b)‑Grounds of detention‑Whether a particular ground is vague or not‑Test : Whether an effective representation, apart from a bare denial of accusation, can be made by detenu.

Muhammad Anwar Shaikh v. District Magistrate, Rawalpindi P L D 1975 Lab. 414 rel.

‑‑.‑ S. 5(1)(b)‑Grounds of detention‑Vagueness of one of grounds‑ Held, fatal defect due to which whole detention order falls to ground‑One of grounds unlawful‑Mere fact that sole other ground is lawful‑Cannot validate otherwise invalid detention order.

Government of East Pakistan v. Mrs. Rowshan Bijaya Shaukat Ali Khan P L D 1966 S C 286 and Nek Ammol v. Political Agent, Malaknnd P L D 1975 Posh. 67 rel.

Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner.

D. M. Awan, A.‑G. for Respondents.,

Date of hearing : 10th October 1975.

‑This petition challenges the validity of the order dated 27th of September, 1975 passed under section 5 (1) (b) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 detaining Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar Rana for a period of one month within the boundaries of Lalazar Colony and jurisdiction of Police Station Gulberg, Lyallpur. The grounds of detention as contained in Annexure E' were furnished to the detenu on the same date and time when the order as referred to above was served upon him. The said grounds read as follows :‑

(1) You are a professional labour leader, agitator and are known for inciting the labourers to take to violence and disturb public peace and tranquillity. On 7th, 8th and 9th February, 1972, you delivered highly inflammatory speeches in Lyallpur city and instigated the labourers to resort to lawlessness and blood‑shed etc. In consequence of your instigation, Mian Abdul Khaliq, Proprietor, National Hosiery, Lyallpur was murdered by Siraj Din and others leading to the registration of case F. I. R. No. 54 of 1972 under section 302, P. P. C. etc. You are facing commitment proceedings under section 302/109, P. P. C. in the Court of City Magistrate, Lyallpur in this case.

(2) After coming out of the Jail you have again been meeting labour leaders at your house in addition to telephonic contacts in this regard with them with a view to instigate the labour section of Lyallpur and thus disturb public peace and tranquility.

It may be mentioned here that after tae acceptance of Writ Petition No. 1455 of 1975 partially by this Court whereby Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar Rana was allowed 553 days of remission in his sentence, he was to be released on 27th of September, 1975. According to the petitioner, who is brother of the detenu, Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar Rana was visited at 11‑00 p. m. on 26th of September, 1975 by a Provincial Minister alongwith A. D. C. (G). and Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and a heavy contingent of police force includ ing 3/4 S. Ps. and was forcibly taken away first to Sheikhupura Rest House and then to Lyallpur where he was lodged at his own house. According to the petitioner, the detenu was served there with a detention order as well as grounds of detention.

2. Malik Dost Muhammad Awan learned Advocate‑General Punjab while arguing the case on behalf of the respondents bas tried to justify the impugned order, it being precise and clear against which representation can be made by the detenu. He has argued while referring to ground No. I irrespective of the fact that the detenu is facing trial for the offence under section 302, P. P. C. on account of the murder of Mian Abdul Khaliq, proprietor of National Hosiery, Lyallpur, that he can be detained under the relevant law for delivering alleged inflammatory speech has a consequence of which murder of Mian Abdul Khaliq took place.

3. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the grounds of detention being vague are not valid and can not be made basis for the detention of Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar Rana. He has also argued that since the detenu is facing trial for the murder of Mian Abdul Khaliq as referred to above, therefore, he cannot be detained on that ground under the relevant law. He has further contended, while referring to the last para. of the order permitting the detenu to attend the Court in the regard to commitment proceedings in the murder case pending against him at Lyallpur, that the relaxation made in this behalf by the District Magistrate has rendered the impugned order defective as he is not competent to do so.

4. We have not been impressed by the last argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are of the view that permission to the detenu to attend the inquiry proceedings in the murder case pending against him does not invalidate the impugned order. Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar Rana has been detained in a specified area and he can leave the same only with the permission of the detaining authority for a valid reason. All that what is required by the impugned order is that the detenu would reside and remain within the specified area and would not leave the same except with the due permission of the detaining authority. We do not see any reason as to why A the restriction imposed upon the detenu cannot he relaxed to the extent of permitting him to attend the Court proceedings. There being no force in this argument, the same is hereby repelled.

5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ground No. 1 should be split into two parts as it relates to two different allegations. According to him the detenu has been accused of being a professional labour leader/agitator and responsible for inciting labourers to indulge in violence and disturb public peace and tranquillity. Second allega tion according to the learned counsel is with regard to the alleged inflamma tory speech which resulted in the murder of Mian Abdul Khaliq. It is con tended that first part being vague cannot be made a valid ground for deten tion. So far as second part of ground No. 1 is concerned the same also cannot be a valid basis for detention as the detenu is already facing trial on account of said murder. We have carefully examined the language of ground No. 1 and are of the view that first part is only a prelude to the second part showing the detenu to be a sort of agitator and making inflammatory speeches, such as ore which resulted in the murder of Mian Abdul Khaliq. The question which arises for consideration is that even if ground No. 1 is taken to be a precise one whether the same can be made basis for detention of Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar Rana. It is not denied that the detenu is already facing trial for the said murder. It means that definite charge has been brought against him for the substantive offence and he is under going prosecution in relation thereto. The administration has chosen a particular forum for punishing him for the alleged offence. According to law it will not be open to the authorities concerned to use the same offence as ground of preventive detention under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. It has been held in Muhammad Youns v. Province of Sind P L D 1974 Kar, 694 that it would be unreasonable exercise of power to order preventive deten tion on a charge for which the detenu is already facing regular trial in a criminal Court. The same view has been taken by the same learned Judge in Liaquat Ali v. Government of Sind P L D 1973 Kar. 78. It can be argued on behalf of the respondents while relying upon Mehraj Muhammad Khan v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1966 Kar. 282 that on account of his past conduct there is reasonable apprehension that if the detenu is not put under detention then he may again resort to such activities which may create law and order problem. Mr. Mehraj Muhammad Khan in that case had been charged in for cases for organizing violent demonstrations of students and for arson etc. He had been granted bail in all those cases and the allegation was that he was organizing such demonstrations again creating law and order problem. In the present case Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar Rana has been in jail for about three years and during that period question of indulging in such activities on his part does not arise. Under the relevant provision of law as contained in section 5 (1) (b) of the Ordinance the District Magistrate, if satisfied may detain a person for the purpose of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or public interest, or the maintenance of public order. It means that if a person starts acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or interest then necessary action can be taken against him under this provision. There is no such allegation, in the present case, against Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar Rana. Though a vague allegation has been made in ground No. 2 that after coming out of jail he has been again meeting labour leaders at his residence with a view to instigate the labourers of Lyallpur for distur bing public peace and tranquillity. It has been argued that ground No. 2 is not vague inasmuch as the detenu has been accused of meeting labour leaders at his residence on 27th of September 1975 when he came out of jail. According to the learned counsel for the respondents time and place being clearly given in the ground the same cannot be termed to be vague. We however, do not find force in this contention. Toe name of the labour leaders whom the detenu is alleged to have met has not been given. The test for finding out whether a particular ground is vague or not is whether an effective representa tion apart from a bare denial of the accusation conveyed to the detenu can be made by him. Reliance in this respect can be placed upon Muhammad Anwar Sheikh v. District Magistrate, Rawalpindi P L D 1975 Lah.414. In the present case, in the absence of the names of the labour leaders alleged to have been met by the detenu no effective representation can be made against this accusation.

It has been conceded by the learned Advocate‑General that if any of the grounds of detention is vague then the whole detention order would fall to the ground being suffering from a fatal defect. According to law if one of the grounds is unlawful the mere fact that some other ground is lawful cannot validate and otherwise invalid detention order. This view finds support fro n Government of East Pakistan v. Mrs. Rowshan Bijaya Shaukat Ali Khan P L D 1966 S C 286, and Muhammad Anwar Sheikh's case, as referred to above. The same view has been taken in Nek Amal v. Political Agent, Malakand P L D 1975 Pesh. 67. In that case the detenu was informed that he had delivered an objectionable speech in August, 1973 intending to incite violence amongst the landlords and tenants of Malakand Agency. It was held that since the name of the place and the language used in that speech was not conveyed, therefore, the ground being vague was not sustainable in law and defect being fatal the detention order could not be upheld.

In view of the above discussion the petition is hereby accepted and the impugned order passed by the respondent under section 5 (1) (b) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, is hereby set aside being illegal and without jurisdiction. The detenu, Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar Rana will be set at liberty forthwith if otherwise not detained in any other case under a valid order. The parties will bear their own costs.

S. Q. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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