Pakistan Case Law← Search
1977 P Cr. L J 415

Syed AHMADUDDIN vs SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, LAHORE AND 2 Others

Citation1977 P Cr. L J 415
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No, 664/H of 1975
Date1976-07-01
Judge(s)Muhammad Rafique Tarar
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' Syed Ahmadud Din petitioner moved this petition under section 491, Cr. P. C. With the prayer that a writ in the nature of habes corpus may be issued for the early release of the alleged detenu, namely, Syed Mahmud Ali. It is alleged that Syed Mahmud Ali who is an Indian national, came to Pakistan in the year 1970 without having any valid document for entering into Pakistan territory and was arrested by Multan Police. He was prosecuted under section 14 of the Foreigners Act and was sentenced to four months' R. I. After serving out his sentence, he remained confined in Kot Lakhpat Jail for about four or five years. After 1-1/2 years before the institution' of this petition, he was produced before the Indian authorities but they refused to accept him on the ground that he was not an Indian national.

2. The learned Deputy Attorney-General and the learned counsel for the State submit that Syed Mahmud All for whose release this petition has been filed, is neither a detenu nor a prisoner but only an internee for the purpose of repatriation to India and his internment was not illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that Syed Mahmud Ali is only an internet and not a detenu or prisoner but contends that he cannot be confined in Jail. The learned Deputy Attorney- General has relied on a judgment of his Lordship Mr. Justice Karam Elahee Chauhan passed in Cr.

Misc. No, 131/H/76 in which his Lordship has observed as under :- "If the detenu himself violated law, entered Pakistan without authority committed offence and chose to suffer its consequences, he should not grudge when the rigour of law applied to him. He is, in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, not a detenu within the meaning of this term as generally understood. To be more precise he is simply an internee and should be better advised to await his turn of repatriation especially when powers of deportation vests in the Central Government and not a. Court."

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any authority to the contrary. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations There is no substance in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. They internee shall surrender to his bail bond forthwith.

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