Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1990 P Cr. L J 167

MUHAMMAD AHMED KHAN vs COMMISSIONER, D.I. KHAN and 4 others

Citation1990 P Cr. L J 167
CourtPeshawar High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No, 412 of 1982
Date1989-06-05
Judge(s)Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Abdul Karim Khan Kundi
ResultPetition dismissed

' ABDUL KARIM KHAN KUNDI, J.--- Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner's brother Munawar Ahmad Khan was allegedly kidnapped from Sargodha and taken to South Waziristan Agency, where proceedings under section 11 F.C.R. Were initiated against him and dispute was referred to the Jirga of elders and afterwards a decree for a sum of Rs,5,17,500 was passed as against the detent in favor of respondent No,5 by A.PA. Respondent No,3. The detent assailed the decree in revision before the Commissioner D.I. Khan Division (respondent No,1) who after hearing remanded the case to the lower Court with direction of administration of oath to the witnesses in number 30 in accordance with the terms of the Jirga Award. The detent meanwhile released on bail was once against taken into custody at D.I. Khan and lodged in Jail at Wana South Waziristan Agency. A writ petition was filed by the detenu's brother as against his detention as well contesting his liability to the payment of the decrial amount since the forums under the F.C.R. Had acted Coram non judice and their orders were illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. Pending the writ petition the detenu has since been released. Under Article 199(1)(b) of the Constitution in the matter of detention any person can approach the High Court for direction that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he has not been held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner. To that extent the brother of the detenu herein the petitioner could file and maintain a writ petition, but as and when the detenu has been released the writ petition shall be deemed to have served its purpose and no further adjudication shall be required in the matter of detention.

3. As for contesting the liability of the detenu in the matter of decrees passed against him by the forums under F.C.R. He himself is the only aggrieved party who can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution for orders, direction or declaration that any act done or proceedings taken within its, territorial jurisdiction by functionaries of the federation, province or local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

His brother the petitioner, also, not being his attorney, cannot invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to seek a redress for him, as being not an aggrieved party.

' That being the position, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

The detenu may, if so advised, maintain an independent writ petition in contesting the decree passed against him by the forums under F.C.R. Which, if and when filed will be decided on its own merits irrespective of the decision in this writ petition.

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