Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 7 1971 SLD 7 1971 PLD 55
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1970, decision dated: 4th November 1970
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C, J., SAJJAD AHMAD, M. R. KHAN AND WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
M. B. Zaman, Advocate-General Punjab (Saeed-ur-Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz All, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Responde

GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN and 2 others

VS

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR MIR-

Law: Punjab Police Rules, 1934

Section: R-23,23.4,23.9

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 2(2),19

(a) Punjab Police Rules, r. 23.9 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1962)--- Art. 2(2) - History sheet, opening of-Oppor­tunity of showing cause must be given to person concerned-­Person having only one conviction to his credit and that too of one under S. 19, Arms Act of a fine of Rs. 10 for possession of a knife-Held: this was not sufficient to hold him as person habitually addicted to crime; opening of history sheet without giving him opportunity to show cause was invalid. The history sheet opened for a person under rule 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules is not really a guarded secret of the police force. After history sheets have been opened, they are required to be kept in any of the three Bundles `A', `B' or `C' mentioned in rule 23.10 of the Rules. According to the various provisions of the rules, the fact of entry of the name of a person in the Surveillance Register and the history sheet is made known to the headman of the village and the zaildars and lambardars in due course. This gives sufficient publicity about the alleged bad character of the person concerned. These prominent villagers will naturally form an adverse opinion about the character of the person whose history sheet has been opened or whose name has been entered in the Surveillance Register. It is because of the publicity of the history sheet and the Surveillance Register in the above manner that the person concerned is lowered in the estimation of the outsiders and his reputation is affected. Now, Article 2(2) of the 1962­Cocstitution, expressly forbids the taking of any action detri­mental to the life, liberty, body and reputation of any person except in accordance with law. Thus there is a constitutional guarantee for the protection of a person's reputation. The rule of natural justice is to be presumed to be grafted into every law. According to this rule, no action affecting the reputation of any person can be taken unless he has been given an oppor­tunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. This is a well-settled rule and its adherence has been emphasised by this Court in some of its decisions which are so well-known that it is hardly necessary to repeat them.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492