Through this Constitutional petition, Zarban Shah wants this Court to' declare the order of District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan whereby Muhammad All was ordered to be detained for 3 months under section 3 of M.P.O.O., 1960, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. On the request of the Superintendent of Police, Rahimyar Khan, the learned District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan made order on 2-7-1988 for the detention of Muhammad Ali for 3 months under section 3 of M.P.O.O., 1960 on the ground of his involvement in 27 criminal cases under various sections of P.P.C. And Arms Ordinance, 1965.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from technical defects; that the reasons given in the order are vague; that the mere registration of cases against the petitioner does not call for his detention under section 3 of M.P.O.O. And that the past activities of a person cannot be made the ground for his detention. The learned AA.-G. Opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that on basis of past involvement of the detent in 27 criminal cases, the learned District Magistrate has passed the impugned order. The main arguments of the learned counsel that the past activities of detenu cannot be regarded as valid grounds for the detention under section 3 of M.P.O.O. 1960, is devoid of substance and force. It is by now well-settled that past activities or conduct of a person is often relevant to judge his future action. What a person is likely to do in future can only be a matter of inference from various circumstances and his past record is valuable guide in this behalf, so it was open to the learned District Magistrate to take note of the past conduct of the detenu and his involvement in a number of criminal cases and if he apprehends repetition of such conduct in future, the order of detention could be made with a view to prevent such action. It is from previous events, showing tendency of a man that an inference can be drawn about what he is do in future. The plain reading of the provision of section 3 of M.P.O.O. Could make it clear that exercise of the power of detention is made dependent upon the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, that with a view to prevent a person from acting in prejudicial manner, stated therein, it is necessary to detain him. So in view of the past history of the petitioner and his involvement in large number of criminal cases including crimes of violance, it cannot be said that there was not justification for the learned District Magistrate to make the impugned order.
5. For what has been said above there being no merits, the petition is dismissed.