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.
Criminal Revision No. 83 of 1977, decided on 10th April 1978.
-- Ss. 8(3)(b) & 22(2)-Detention, extension of-Period of detention further extended for two months by Commissioner without mentioning case as one of emergency necessitating immediate measures-Merely because enquiry could not be completed within initial detention period, held, no ground for detention of person proceeded against nor for extension of that period.-[Preventive detention].
Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioner.
Nazir Alam for the State.
Date of hearing : 10th April 1978.
This is a criminal revision application under section 22(2) of the Sind Crimes Control Act against the order of Commissioner, Hyderabad Division extending further detention of the applicant under section 8(3)(b) of the said Act for a period of 2 months.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that S. H. O., S. I. T. E., Police Station, Hyderabad sent a report in the Court of S. D. M. and Tribunal, City, Hyderabad, that the applicant habitually indulges in offences relating to narcotics and he had been sent up in about 9 cases under section 43(3), Abkari Act for possessing charas. Along with this report an application was made for interim detention of the applicant under section 8(3)(b). The applicant was accordingly detained for a period of 2 months and a reference was made to the Commissioner for extending this period. The Commissioner extended the period by 2 months for the reason that enquiry could not be completed by the tribunal within the initial period of detention and for completing the enquiry the period-had to be extended.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sheikh on behalf of the applicant that the original order of detention by the S. D. M. and Tribunal was not strictly in accordance with law since in all the cases cited there was no allegation that the applicant was found selling any narcotics. All that was stated in these cases was that some tolas of the charas has been recovered from his possession. Mr. Shaikh has accordingly argued that possession of small quantities of charas for personal consumption does not fall under clause (2) of section 14. Under that clause a person would be liable if he keeps a place where illicit intoxicants are consumed or earns his livelihood from such place or engages in illicit manufacture, storage, purchase or sale of intoxicants. It has been argued that there are no such allegations against the applicant that he was found dealing in intoxicants. It has next been pointed out that the Commissioner could extend the period of initial detention only if there was justification for such further detention for reasons which would be necessary and which would cover the case for initial detention. The Commissioner could not go beyond the scope of subsection (3) of section 8, nor could he give his reasons independently of that section. Now under section 8(3), pending completion of the enquiry a person could be detained if the Tribunal considered that immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of the commission of the act complained against. That a person could be detained after recording such reasons in writing. Since the extension by the Commissioner would be continuation of the detention it was necessary even when the detention was extended, to mention if the case was one of emergency necessitating immediate measures. Merely because the enquiry could not be completed within 2 months would not be a ground for the detention of the person proceeded against and likewise it would not be a ground for extension of that detention.
4. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the extension of detention by the Commissioner for a further period of 2 months was without cogent grounds. The order of detention 'accordingly set aside and the applicant shall continue on bail. Enquiry may, however, be completed by the S. D. M. and Tribunal on merits. With this modification the revision application is otherwise dismissed.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer