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.
Writ Petition No. 902 of 1981, decided on 14th March, 1981
‑‑Art. 199‑Detention‑Detaining authorities having sufficient reasons to believe indulgence of petitioner in espionage for India and in that connection illegally visiting India many times and contacting Indian Intelligence Authorities and passing over informa tion prejudicial to interests of country‑Constitutional jurisdiction not exercised in favour of petitioner in circumstances.‑[Preventive detention].
Agha Shorish Kashmiri v. The State P L D 1969 S C 14 and Malik Ghulam Jillani v. The State P L D 1967 S C 373 ref.
Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
Iftikhar Ahmad, Deputy Attorney‑General for the State.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Attorney‑General.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Agha Shorish Kashmiri v. The State (PLD1969SC14) and Malik Ghulam Jillani v. The State (PLD1967SC373) for raising a contention that the grounds of detention had to be stated and the same have to be objective.
2. Learned Deputy Attorney‑General does not dispute the proposition of law laid in the referred cases. However, his contention is that it is factually wrong that the grounds of detention have not been communicated to the petitioner. According to the learned Deputy Attorney‑General each time the grounds have been specifically stated and communicated to the petitioner. The learned Deputy Atorney General has placed for my perusal the confidential file containing the date against the petitioner and I do not consider it expedient in the interest of State to reproduce the same, suffice it to say that the detaining authorities have reasons to believe that the petitioner has been indulging in espionage for India and in that connection he illegally visited India 22 times and there contacted the Indian Intelli gence Authorities and passed over information, prejudicial to the interests/ of the country.
3. In this view of the matter, I am not persuaded to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Dismissed.
M.Y.M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer