' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in questiori the validity of the order of the District Magistrate, Kasur, dated 19-9-1989 made under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 directing the detention of the petitioner for a period of two months.
2. The impugned order states that the District Magistrate was satisfied on the basis of the record placed before him and the enquiry conducted through secret means that Umar Din alias Umroo petitioner 'is involved in 6 cases (details given in the grounds of detention attached with the order) and indulging presently in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and safety. He is an incorrigible criminal and is acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order and I am satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in such manner, it is necessary to arrest and detain the said Umar Din alias Umroo son of Abdul Majid caste Rajpue. In the grounds of detention accompanying the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner was involved/challaned in 6 criminal cases mentioned therein. Further ground stated is 'I have enquired through secret means that you are still continuing your nefarious activities and are likely to continue the said activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Considering your past record and present activities I am satisfied that your detention is necessary in order to prevent you from acting as such.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Advocate-General. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that mere registration of cases is not a valid and legal basis for ordering detention under section 3(1) of the Ordinance. Learned counsel has categorically stated that out of 6 cases registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted in 4 cases and only two cases mentioned at Serial Nos. 5 and 6 in the list are pending. Learned counsel also submitted that it is incorrectly stated in the impugned order and the grounds of detention that the District Magistrate made any secret enquiry about the petitioner's so-called 'nefarious activities'.
Learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the assertions/contentions made on behalf of the petitioner. He quite fairly concedes that 'the record made available to him does not indicate that the District MAO-trate conducted any enquiry through secret f means regarding the pefitiOners activities. {{BLUR PAGE}} ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned ecninselifol-Athe petitioner. There is considerable force in his contention that the mere fact that the petitioner has been involved in a number' [if criminal cases is, per se, not a valid ground for preventive detention. Law is well- established ihat.Wherl a person has been prosecuted on a criminal charge, the same material should not, in fairness, be taken as a reasonable basis for ordering his detention. Refer Shahidul Hague v. Government of East Pakistan 19691'.' Cr. L J 449. Reference may also usefully be made to Liaquat Ali v. Government, of Sindh PLD 1973 ,Kar. 78 and Muhammad Yount's v. Province of Sindh P ID 1973 Kar. 694 wherein it vv,s held that 'where definite charges are brought against the detenu* for substantive offences and the detenu is undergoing prosecution therefor, the administration has'made'up its niind and there choice is that the detenu should be proSecuted for these offences, and, having made this choice, it would ordinarily not be open to the, administration to also use such charge, as,groitrid of preventive-detention under the West Pakistan MainterlOnce&PublieObterOrdinance,:1960'. Learned Judges of the Karachi High Court expreSsed =The view 'to baseitircw.Order,of detention on a charge for which the detenus are facing regular trickinli.Crimittin Court is unreasonable exercise of the power to order preventivetiptentioifi. Hi this view of the matter I hold that the criminal charges fOrwhichaliepetitioneris racing a criminal trial or in which he :has been convicted/acquitted cannotiform reasonable basis for ordering the preventive daention. I wooldii*tidike:,to observe that the District Magistrate appears to havielniechanicallyiacdepted the recommendation of the police without applyirig.Bisown independentiruinchtOthe material placed before him. It may,aisopertinAntlybe,abservddAthlitlhesecond ground pressed into serviceuby the DistrictIMagistrake inatriely that he cone ucited inquiry tough the secret means is not borne outlitorri,thexecordiasiconceded by the learned Advocate-General, For this reason also,:rthe impugned order of detention cannot he sustained for the law is fairly welhsettled thaiiiti one of the grounds of detention is bad or is non-existent, the wholeAtirderroftiletention is rendered invalid.
Refer Rehmat Elahi v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1965'Lah. 112, which was approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court art, the ease of Government of West Pakistan v. Haider Bakhsh Jatoi 1969 SC210.
' Upshot of the above discussion is that petition owelkwitto costs, the impegAcd order of petitioner's4etenlicio is declared tsrbe) withelito lawful authority of no legal:effect andAia-directed that the petitioner ibecacko at liberty and released forthwithtunless waotodiiksorne criminal easek,b 1e, ?Bliuolg {{BLUR PAGE}} 1990] Momen Khan v. State 951, (Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J) .Nodu . b3wolib utti nz .51.9 bsi 3, :!;-.1.