Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG 3106 = 1962 SLD 3106 = 1962 PLD 990
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 671 of 1962, decided on 14th July 1962.  
Presented By: Shabir Ahmad and Anwarul Haq, JJ
Sh. Muhammad Shafi for Petitioners.  

SHERU DHARANA AND ANOTHER-Petitioners  

VERSUS

  A. BAJWA, C.S.P., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; SARGODHA AND OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)

Section:

Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)-Preamble --Confining application of Regulation to certain Frontier Districts --Regulation extended to other Districts (Sargodha) by Frontier Crimes Regulation (Amendment) Ordinance (VIII of 1962) without amending preamble-Regulation to have extended effect-Inter pretation of Statutes-Preamble-Does not affect unambiguous provisions of statute.   Frontier Crimes Regulation (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance (XII of1962), S. 2 (a)-Council-of-Elders (for Sargodha District) not constituted according to Pathan or Bluch usage--- Not invalid-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 110.   Frontier Crimes Regulation (Ill of 1901), S. 1 (3) as amended by Frontier Crimes Regulation (Amendment) Ordinance (VIII of 1962), S. 2-Application of Regulation not confined necessarily to districts "near the Frontier of Pakistan". ORDER   SHABIR AHMAD, J.-This petition seeks the same relief as was sought by co-accused of the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 994 of 1962 which was dismissed by us on the 11th June 1962.   Some points raised in this petition were not raised in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 994 of 1962 and it is these points only that we will deal with. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that even after the promulgation of Ordinance VIII of 1962 by the President of Pakistan the Frontier   Crimes Regulation, 1901 could not be made applicable to districts other than those which were near the Frontiers of Pakistan. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the preamble to the Frontier Crimes Regulation which does lend some support to the contention raised. In Ordinance VIII of 1962, however, it is stated in unambiguous terms that the Regulation could be more applicable to any part of the Province of West Pakistan and it was no denied by learned counsel for the petitioners that if the pre amble to the Frontier Crimes Regulation had been suitable amended the Regulation could have been applied to any part of the Province of West Pakistan. We cannot accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners because it is…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register