Pakistan Case Law← Search
K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 186

MUHAMMAD MANSHA vs MUHAMMAD ABDUR RAZZAQ

CitationK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 186
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Crl. Misc. No. 836-H of 1997
Date1997-07-22
Judge(s)Faqir Muhammad Khokhar
ResultN/A

ORDER

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKKAR, J.- The alleged detenus having been recovered have been produced by the bailiff before this Court. The report of the bailiff shows that on 17.7.1997 at 5.30 P.M. The detenus had been found in the Dera/Haveli of the respondent. The bailiff present in Court states that the detenus did not seem to be under any restraint and they were free to move about.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the money taken by the detenus as an advance to work for the respondent in the fields could appropriately be recovered having recourse to the normal provision of law but the detenus could not be forced to work by the respondent.

3. On the other had, learned counsel for respondent has stated that this is not a case of any wrongful and illegal custody. An amount of Rs. 30,000/- had been taken by the petitioner, Rs.

25,000/- by Sarwar date and Rs. 16,000/- P.M. By Sher Muhammad date as advance to render work for the respondent in the cultivation of the land, in addition to the 12 maunds of wheat and 25 maunds of paddy each to the petitioner, Sher Muhammad and Sarwar detenus. It was further stated that the petitioner Mansha was being paid Rs. 1000/- m.p. Sher Muhammad date Rs. 900/- and sarwar date Rs. 1000/- p.m. As their salary. It was further submitted that none of the detenus were put under kind of restraint and it could not be a case of forced labour. It is further submitted that the present petition has been filed with ulterior motive with a view to avoid the payment of the money which was Already taken as an advance.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the report of the bailiff, this is not a case of any wrongful and illegal custody by the respondent. This petition seems to be a frivolous and vexatious one is order to avoid the payment of advance money which had already been taken by the petitioner as well as by the detenus.

5. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1000/- to the other side to be paid without any delay.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search