3. Mr. Muhammad Wasif Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that proceedings for taking into custody the
alleged detenue has been initiated in the garb of Section 2(1)(d) of
“Act, 1952”. He added that impugned action is illegal and unlawful
on the ground that mere receipt of information or arrest on account
thereof, would not mean that the alleged detenue has become an
accused under the said provision of law. It is contended that unless a
person, whose custody is sought is an accused, he cannot be treated
subject to “Act, 1952”. It is emphatically argued that though the
alleged detenue was taken into custody on the allegations of
commission of an offence under the “Act, 1923” but mandatory
provisions contained therein have completely been ignored. Learned counsel further added that there is a clear distinction between person
subject to the Act and the person, who otherwise not subject to the
Act but has been made subject of the Act in terms of clause (d) of
Section 2(1) of “Act, 1952”. Learned counsel emphasized that the
impugned action is tainted with malafide and coram non judice. It is
contended with vehemence that on above account bar in terms of
Article 199(3) of “Constitution” cannot be pleaded in the way of this
petition. In order to supplement his contentions, learned counsel
placed reliance on “BRIG. (RETD.) F.B. ALI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE”
(PLD 1975 Supreme Court 506), “SAIFUDDIN SAIF versus FEDERATION
OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS” (PLD 1977 Lahore 1174) and “Syed
MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHOHRAT BOKHARI versus FEDERATION OF
PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS” (PLD 1981 Lahore 742).
Part Of Judgment
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition-Criminal proceedings-Detention/habeas
3739-19
2020 LHC 1
0 Comments