Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2016 MLD 986

SAFEER SHAH vs The STATE

Citation2016 MLD 986
CourtPeshawar High Court
Case No.W.P. No,861-A of 2015
Date2015-09-15
Judge(s)Lal Jan Khattak, Qalandar Ali Khan
ResultPetition allowed

' QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.---Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner, Safeer Shah, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for a declaration to the effect that his detention order under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Ordinance, 1960 (MPO) bearing No,3308 dated 07.08.2015, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad, (respondent No,2) for a period of 30 days was illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, perverse and of no legal effect on the rights of the petitioner.

2. In his writ petition, the petitioner vehemently resisted ground of the respondent with regard to his involvement in Anti Social Activities prejudicial to public order, safety and tranquility or ever trying to undermine writ of the government or disturb peace of the locality. The petitioner claimed that his father was well known personality of the locality who had moved applications against Forest Officers bent upon damaging the forest, therefore, the latter were out to concoct cases against him and falsely implicate him in criminal cases with mala fide intentions.

3. In response to notice of the Court, the respondents defended the impugned order dated 07.08.2015 by showing that the impugned order of respondent No,2 was based on the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, (DFO) Abbottabad (respondent No,6) regarding alleged cutting and destruction of forest by timber smugglers and request for action against them under Section 3 MPO. The letter/memo of the DFO to the Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad, dated 01.07.2015, would show cases of causing damage to the forest against several persons including the petitioner, who had also been booked under the relevant forest laws as well as under Sections 506/186/148 and 149, P.P.C. On the reports of officials of the Forest Department. The petitioner has, on the other hand, placed on record applications/complaints of his father, Muhammad Asghar Shah, against officers/officials of the forest department for causing damage to the forest and loss to the national exchequer.

4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that having registered cases against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of forest laws and Pakistan Penal Code, there was hardly any justification to also put the petitioner behind the bars under preventive law of MPO, which is not meant for punishing the perpetrators, rather intended to prevent a person from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or the Maintenance of Public Order in some specified cases under the relevant provision of law and in the light of judgments of the superior Courts of the Country.

Needless to say that no such allegations are forthcoming against the petitioner in the instant case, except single instance of alleged involvement of the petitioner in causing damage to the forest and also interference in the performance of duty by the forest officials, which are yet to be proved in the Court of law. In any case, when criminal act or offence is committed, there could be no occasion for preventive measures or preventive detention, which could have been taken, if at all warranted under the relevant provision of law, before commission of the offence and not thereafter. Anyhow, the authorities cannot have resort to preventive detention as a mean to punish an alleged offender.

5. In the absence of proof/evidence of alleged act(s) of the petitioner posing threat to public safety and maintenance of peace and order in the area, the impugned step taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad, (respondent No,2), and consequent incarceration of the petitioner under Section 3 MPO is not warranted by law and against the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution.

6. Therefore, on the acceptance of the writ petition, the impugned order of the respondent No,2 is declared illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. Consequently, the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch