This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the order dated 25-2-1989 of the District Magistrate, Okara, whereby Zulfiqar A.I son of Sardar Khan was detained under section 3(i) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter called the Ordinance).
2. Briefly the facts are that the Superintendent of Police, Okara, requested the District Magistrate, Okara, that Zulfiqar A.I detenu be detained for a period of three months as he was a habitual offender and anti-social element having criminal history. His activities were prejudicial to public safety. In support of his recommendations, the S.P. Relied on the following prosecution cases:- (1)Case F.I.R.439under section 307/34, P.P.C.
(2)-do- 195under section. 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965.
(3)-do- 112-do- (4)-do- 101-do- (5)-do- 73Under Article 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
(6)-do- 345Under section 325/148/149 (7)-do- 188Under sections 447 (8)-do- 185Under section 307/148/149 (9)-do- 21Under section 435/336/379 (10)-do- 415Under section 336/307/148/149 Out of these cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted in two cases, namely, F.I.R. No. 188/78 and 185/79. On the basis of this recommendation, the learned District Magistrate, Okara, passed the impugned order against the detenu.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the grounds for detention were not supplied to the petitioner alongwith the detention order and, therefore, on this score alone, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Rana Muhammad Arif, Assistant Advocate-General refuted the assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner and produced the record, which shows that the grounds were supplied to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the mere fact that the detenu was facing prosecution in a number of cases is not a sufficient ground to detain him under section 3(i) of the Ordinance. I am inclined to agree with his submission that the mere fact that the detenu was facing prosecution in a number of cases is not a valid ground for his detention under section 3(i) of the Ordinance. If the concerned authorities make a choice to prosecute for offence, the same cannot be a ground for detention of the detenu under the Ordinance. This view finds support from the Division Bench judgment in Muhammad Abdullah v. District Magistrate 1988 P Cr. L J 1087. Apart from this, the record does not show that the detaining authority had applied his independent mind as to whether on the mere ground that he was facing prosecution in some cases, he could be detained.
H.B.T./A-600/L