The S.H.O. Police Station Mustafabad, District Kasur submitted the report to the Superintendent of Police, Kasur on 5-8-1996 to the effect that Muhammad Yasin son of Rahim Khan resident of Mauza Sharhali Kalan, Police Station Mustafabad, District Kasur is involved in three different cases who may be a source of threat to the general public and that he may be got detained. On that Letter No.3758/SBQ, dated 5-8-1996 was sent by the Superintendent of Police, Kasur to the District Magistrate, Kasur.
2. It is proper to express that it is a cyclostyled letter wherein the relevant portions have been filled.
This letter dated 5-8-1996 is reproduced as under:--- "From The Superintendent of Police, Kasur.
To The District Magistrate, Kasur.
No. 3758/SBQ, dated 5-8-1996.
Subject: DETENTION UNDER SECTION 3. M.P.O.
Memorandum.
It has been reported by the local Police that Mr. Muhammad Yasin son of Rahim Khan case Meo resident of Sarhali Kalan, P.S. Mustafabad is a bad character person having previous criminal record. He is an anti-social element and is likely to spoil peace and tranquillity of the inhabitants of the locality by his disorderly behaviour. His detention is very necessary to stop his nefarious activities as he is acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the public peace and maintenance of public order.
2.He is also involved in the following cases:----
(1) F.I.R. No.144, dated 12-10-1969 under section 167/8/9, L.C.A. P.S., Mustafabad.
(2) F.I.R. No.25, dated 20-2-1970 under section 156/8/9 L.C.A., P.S. Mustafabad.
(3) F.I.R. No.21, dated 19-1-1978 under section 61/1/14.
3. In view of the above, it is requested that Muhammad Yasin as mentioned above may kindly be detained for a period of 3 months under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960.
4. Report of the local Police is also enclosed for favour of perusal.
(Sd.)
(SARDAR SAEED GUL KHAN), Superintendent of Police, Kasur. "
3. Afterwards the District Magistrate, Kasur passed the order dated 5-8-1996 (Annexure A) under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 detaining Muhammad Yasin for a period of three months on the grounds mentioned in Annexure "B" and both the aforesaid Annexures are reproduced as under:--- "Office of the District Magistrate, Kasur.
Whereas, I am satisfied on the basis of record placed before me and enquiry conducted through secret means that Muhammad Yasin son of Rahim Khan case Meo resident of Sarhali Kalan, Police Station Mustafabad, Tehsil and District Kasur is an anti-social person and is a constant threat to the peace and tranquillity of the area. He is involved and indulging presently in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and safety. He is an incorrigible activist 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 prevent him from acting in such manner, it is necessary to arrest and detain the said Muhammad Yasin.
2. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 conferred on me, I, Syed Tahir Raza Naqvi, District Magistrate, Kasur do hereby direct that the said Muhammad Yasin shall be arrested forthwith by police and be detained in the District Jail, Kasur for a period of three months.
3. The memorandum of grounds, on which basis this order has been passed is appended herewith.
4. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this day 5th August, 1996.
(Sd.)
(SYED TAHIR RAZA NAQVI), District Magistrate, Kasur. "
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KASUR GROUNDS FOR DETENTION You Muhammad Yasin son of Rahim Khan case Meo resident of Sarhali Kalan Police Station of Mustafabad, Tehsil and District Kasur have been ordered to be detained for a period of three months by the undersigned under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 vide order passed today with a view to prevent you from acting in a manner prejudicial to the Maintenance of Public Order on the following grounds:---
(1) That you were involved/challaned in the following cases:---
(1) F.I.R. No.144, dated 12-10-1969 under section 167/8/9 L.C.A., Police Station, Mustafabad.
(2) F.I.R. No.25, dated 20-2-1970 under section 156/8/9 L.C.A., Police Station, Mustafabad.
(3) F.I.R. No.21, dated 19-1-1978 under section 61/1/14 Police Station, Mustafabad.
(2) That according to police reports and its confirmation through other sources, you are an ill- reputed person.
(3) That you are involved and indulging in activities prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order.
(4) That you are an anti-social person and are a constant threat to the peace and tranquillity of area.
(5) That if you are allowed to remain at large, you would act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order.
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.
The above grounds and reasons for your detention are being communicated to you as required by the provisions of section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 to enable you to make if you so desire a representation to the Government, against the order of your detention and you are hereby informed that you are at liberty to make such representation to the Government against the said order.
(Sd.)
(SYED TAHIR RAZA NAQVI), District Magistrate, Kasur. "
4. Muhammad Arshad writ petitioner is the son of Muhammad Yasin detenu who has assailed the vires of Order dated 5-8-1996 passed by the District Magistrate, Kasur/respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner the grounds of detention of Muhammad Yasin detenu appended with the impugned order are vague and on its basis the detention order could not be passed, that the allegations which amount only to criminal offences triable under the law cannot form the basis for preventive detention under the aforesaid section 3, that Muhammad Yasin has been acquitted in all the cases and the new front could not be opened thereof and that Muhammad Yasin did not involve himself in any prejudicial activity within the meaning of the said section 3.
5. The District Magistrate, Kasur/respondent No. l defended the impugned order, dated 5-8-1996 about the detention of Muhammad Yasin who submitted in the comments that he passed the order on the basis of Letter No.3758/SBQ, dated 5-8-1996 sent to him by the Superintendent of Police, Kasur. He contended that three cases had been registered against Muhammad Yasin and the material placed before him was sufficient to hold that Muhammad Yasin detenu was likely to indulge in anti-State activities and to cause alarm to law and order situation. At this stage it is proper to express that the impugned detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kasur has been withdrawn on 2-10-1996 and the detenue was released who appeared before this Court on 25-9-1996 and desired to get disposed of the writ petition on merits keeping in view his future.
5-A. At the very outset the learned Assistant Advocate-General took up the preliminary stand that due to the release of Aftab detenu there is no need to adjudicate and decide the writ petition on merits and that the writ petition has borne the fruit. I do not agree with him. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the future of the detenue is involved as there would be a stigma on his name for good in case the detention order remains in the field. Hence my view is that it would be fair, feasible and just to dispose of the writ petition on merits.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate- General and gone through the record before me.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the S.H.O. Moved the Superintendent of Police, Kasur on 5-8-1996 for getting detained Muhammad Yasin, that the Superintendent of Police, Kasur moved the District Magistrate/respondent No. l on 5-8-1996 vide the relevant letter and that on 5-8-1996 the impugned detention order was passed. He added that the District Magistrate did not consider the matter and simply passed the impugned order in an illegal manner. According to him the involvement of the petitioner in three criminal cases was not enough to justify the passing of the impugned order. On the contrary learned Assistant Advocate- General argued that the activities of Muhammad Yasin detenu were prejudicial to the public peace and maintenance of public order and that the impugned order of detention has rightly been passed.
8. My view is that the impugned order of detention of Muhammad Yasin has been passed in a mechanical manner by the District Magistrate/respondent No. l without application of mind. Right from Station House Officer Police Station Mustafabad, District Kasur up to the District Magistrate, Kasur while the Superintendent of Police also proceeded in the matter, all the proceedings were conducted on 5-8-1996. This haste involved in the matter is enough to make out that there was no justification to pass the impugned order of detention of Muhammad Yasin. I am author of ruling printed as Ahmad A.I v. The State 1995 M LD 1748 (Lahore) wherein I have considered the fact of the pendency/the decisions of the criminal cases registered against the detenu of that case and have held that the aforesaid type of material would not justify the detention order of a detenu. It has also been held in Mst. Bashiran Bibi v. District Magistrate, Kasur 1990 PCr.LJ 913 (Lahore) that the mere fact that the detenu has been involved in a number of criminal cases is per se not a valid ground for preventive detention and that the law is well-established that when a person has been prosecuted on a criminal charge the same material should not in fairness be taken as reasonable basis for ordering his detention. Even according to section 403, Criminal Procedure Code in case of acquittal or conviction of an accused in any criminal case he cannot be vexed for the second time and the matter against him cannot be reopened. According to the stand of the petitioner before this Court the three cases registered against him (Muhammad Yasin) have been decided. Even if he has been convicted he cannot be detained on the basis of the registration of the three cases.
During the arguments it transpired that Muhammad Yasin is a member of Zakat and Ushr Committee of his village. It is a favourable material for him. It seems that due to the intervention of some influential person the District Magistrate without applying his mind in the matter passed the impugned order of the detention of Muhammad Yasin which cannot be sustained. I, therefore, hold that the impugned order about the detention of Muhammad Yasin is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
9. This writ petition is accepted with costs. The detenu has already been released.