1. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J: -- In this petition, the order, dated 20-9--1990 of the District Magistrate Dadu ordering detention of the petitioner for thirty days from the date of the issue of the order under section 3 of tile Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 has been assailed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate-General Sindh appearing for the respondents. The grounds of detention are reproduced here:-- "It has been reported by the police that he (NABAN KHAN SON OF MEHMOOD KIIAN LUND RESIDENT OF KARIMABAD LUND TALUKA DADU) is a hardened criminal, there is general cry from the public that he abets the crimes, shelters the dacoits of the gang of dacoit Laiq Chandio, provides them arms and ammunition, receives and disposes of the robbed and stolen properties by taking `Bhung' and also returns the abductees from, the dacoits on ransom, grounds. He has caused such a harass and havoc among the public of' the locality and as such his remaining at large would be hazardous for the maintenance of law and order, public peace and tranquillity.
2. He is involved in following criminal cases:--
(1) F.I.R. No. 61/80 under section 216-A, P.P.C. P.S. Kotri.
(2) F.I.R. No. 121/89 under section's 471, 420, 468, 120-B, P.S. Johi.
(3) F.I.R. No. 339/89 under section 216-A; P.P.C., P.S. Dadu.
3. His detention order has been passed in order to maintain proper peace and tranquillity in the locality."
4. It has been observed from the grounds of detention that general allegations had been made in the first paragraph of the memorandum of grounds and in the second paragraph, reference has been made about petitioner's involvement in three criminal cases namely F.I.R. No.61/80, F.I.R. No.121/89 and F.I.R. No.339/89. This matter had been admitted to regular hearing by order, dated 25-9-1990 and, while issuing notice for regular hearing on 1-10-l990, it was directed that the material on the basis of which the order of detention has been passed should be available on 1-10-1990, for perusal by the Court. On 1-10-1990 for want of time, the matter could not be taken up and it was adjourned at 2-10-1990 when arguments were partly-heard and then the matter was posted for today for further hearing. Arguments have been concluded today. Abdul Karim Soomro, Assistant Mukhtiarkar, Dadu, presently posted in the office of the District Magistrate, Dadu, has been present in the Court on the dates of hearing alongwith the record. The file of the District Magistrate Dadu shows that a report No.5336, dated I 2-9-1990 had been made by S.H.O. Police Station Dadu to S.S.P.
5. Dadu and on the basis of' the said report, the S.S.P. Dadu made a report on 13-9-1990 to the District Magistrate Dadu in which he mentioned about the report No.5336, dated 12-9-1990 of S.H.O. Police Station Dadu and after making sortie general allegations he referred to three F.I.Rs. Namely, F.1.R.
6. No.61/80 of P.S. Kotri, F.I.R. No.121/89 of P.S: Johi and F.I.R. No.339/89 of P.S. Dadu and then requested the District Magistrate to pass orders for his detention. Copy of the report No:5336, dated 12-9-1990 of S.H.O. Police Station Dadu is not available on the file of the District Magistrate Dadu shown to us.
7. The Assistant Mukhtiarkar also does not have the said report or even the copy of the said report available with him. As the said report is not available on the record of the District Magistrate, it cannot be presumed that the said report No.5336, dated 12-9-19(X) of S.H.O. Police Station Dadu was at all taken into consideration by the District Magistrate. The file of the District Magistrate also does not contain any other material or copies of any material which was considered by the District Magistrate.
8. Learned A.A.-G. Has however placed on record translation of the diaries dated 11-7-1990, 14-7-1990, 2-1-7-1990 and 4-8-1990 of Crime No.173/1990 of Police Station Dadu and has submitted that this material was taken into consideration by the District Magistrate and if the grounds of detention arc seen, the nexus between these diaries and the grounds would be clear. It. Is also submitted by the learned A.A.-G. That apart from the aforesaid diaries in Crime No.173/1990, other record had also been considered by the District Magistrate.
9. We Find no merit in the submission of the learned A.A.-G. As regards the police diaries in ('.Rime in No.173/90. It may be observed that reference has been made in the impugned detention order to the other. F.I.Rs. But no reference has been made to F.I.R. No.173/90 of Police Station Dadu. Then the record of the District Magistrate shown to us does not ,indicate that these diaries were placed before--the District Magistrate and the same had been considered by him before he passed the impugned order. It may also be observed that according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a report under section 10, Cr.P.C. Had been made by S.H.O. Police Station Dadu on 13-9-1990 on which (late the petitioner had been released tinder section 497, Cr.P.C. By the Police Crime in No.173/90. In the said report under section 169, Cr.P.C., it is stated by the S.H.O. That in that case the;re was no proof against the arrested accused (the petitioner) to challan him and, therefore, he was released under section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. In view of the above circumstances, the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.173/W of Police Station Dadu could not be made the basis of passing the impugned order of detention.
11. As regards the other three F.I.Rs. Which are mentioned in the impugned order, we may observe here that according to the file of the District Magistrate produced before us it is not established that the police papers of these F.I.Rs. Were at all produced before the District Magistrate. We have already mentioned that report No.5336, dated 12-9-1990 of Police Station Dadu alongwith any reports or papers that may have been attached to the report of the S.H.O. Were the basic documents in this case. The S.S.P. In his report dated 13-9-1990 relies upon the report of the S.H.O.
12. And apparently the District Magistrate also bases his order on such report. But that report is not available on the record and has also not been produced before us.
13. In the circumstances we are of the view that the impugned order of detention had not been passed in accordance with law. As a result the order, dated 20-9-1990 of the District Magistrate Dadu passed under section 3 of the 8 Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. If the petitioner is not required in any other case, he should be released forthwith.
14. N.H.Q./N-422/K