2009 Y L R 2497 Peshawar
Before Ejaz Afzal Khan and Abdul Aziz Kunehri, JJ
W.P No.2066/2009 Decided on 15th September, 2009
ASSISTANT POLITICAL AGENT, LANDI KOTAL and 2
Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)----
---S.40---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 247(7)---
Constitutional petition---Administration of Tribal Areas---
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court---Petitioner had asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the
authorities to set him free on the grounds that he had been incarcerated under S.40 of Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901
without any rhyme or reason and without there being any material on the record---Counsel for the authorities had stated that since the
petitioner had also been involved in a case of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 he having been shifted to place 'Landikotal', High Court
had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in view of the provisions contained in Art.247(7) of Constitution---Petitioner
could have been required in the case of heinous nature, but no effort was made to shift him from judicial lock-up to the custody of
Investigating Agency for such a long time, despite he was charged with offences of heinous nature and required much greater
attention as compared to S.40 of Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, which did not deal with offences, but security measures for
maintaining law and order in the area---Fundamental rights were available even to the residents of Tribal Areas and the provisions
of the Constitution guaranteeing them were not only mandatory but self-executing---High Court had jurisdiction under Art.199 of the
Constitution to grant relief to a person incarcerated illegally---In the present case, it was otherwise, the fundamental rights with all
their guarantees in the Constitution would be reduced to a farce, which could never be the intent of its framers---Petitioner was
directed to be released on bail under S.40 of Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 and other offences.
Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1975SC 66 ref.
Mian Muhibullah Kaka Khel for Petitioner.
Iqbal Muhammad, D.A.-G. and Ikramullah Khan, A.A.-G. for
Date of hearing: 15th September, 2009.
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---The petitioner through the instant petition has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing
the respondents to set him free on the grounds that he has been incarcerated under 40, FCR without any rhyme or reason and
without there being any material on the record, that he being a Government servant receives his pay regularly and that his service
itself is a far greater guarantee for his peaceful behaviour than a proceeding under section 40, FCR.
2. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Durrani, Advocate, representing respondents Nos.1 and 2 appeared in this Court on 1-9-2009 and sought time to
lay his hand on the record. He, however, submitted that according to the information, he had from the respondents, the petitioner has
been incarcerated under 40 FCR. The case was, however, adjourned to 3-9-2009. The learned counsel appearing on the date
stated that since the petitioner has also been involved in a case of Explosive Substances Act, he has been shifted to Landikotal,
therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in view of the provision contained in Article 247(7) of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. When we inquired from Mr. Ikramukllah Khan, A.A.-G, as to when the
petitioner has been shifted to Landikotal, he after seeking the Jail record submitted that he has been in Jail from 18-5-2009 to 1-9-
2009 till one P.M. When we confronted Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Durrani, as to what was that extraordinary which necessitated his shifting
from the Central Jail Peshawar to Landikotal, that too, on 1-9-2009 soon after his appearance in this Court, the learned counsel could
not give any satisfactory reply except this that the petitioner was required in a case of Explosive Substances Act. On 9-9-2009 the
number of offences was tripled and quadrupled with the addition of section 392/121-A/148/149, P.P.C., read with 11 FCR. When we
inquired about the origin of these cases, the learned counsel submitted that it dates back to the days when the petitioner was
free. But when we asked him to produce something in black and white in this behalf, he produced a report purportedly based on the
reports of Agencies. No other material to substantiate the involvement of the petitioner in the cases mentioned above was,
however, produced before us.
3. We have gone through the record annexed with the petition and the one produced by the learned counsel for the respondents
carefully and considered the arguments addressed at the Bar.
4. Granted that the petitioner may have been required in the cases mentioned above, but why no effort was made to shift him from
judicial lock-up to the custody of the Investigating Agency for such a long time notwithstanding the offences he was charged with
were heinous in nature and required much greater attention as compared to 40 FCR which does not deal with offences but
security measures for maintaining law and order in the area. We also failed to understand how the petitioner has still been in the
service of the Government and has not been proceeded against despite the fact his track record as per reports of the Agencies is so
dismaying. Why did respondents Nos.1 and 2 remain in so deep a slumber, when the gravity of the offences mentioned above called
for immediate response and reaction in terms of investigation and inquiry? Failure on the part of respondents Nos.1 and 2 to answer
any of the questions mentioned above, inescapably leads us to the conclusion that it was nothing but a ruse and a ploy to take away
the petitioner outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In such circumstances, we cannot sit with our eyes shut, with our
hands folded and with our legs crossed, so as to acquiesce to what is illegal altogether on the face of it.
5. The learned A.A.-G appearing on behalf of the State when faced with this state of things also raised the question of
jurisdiction of this Court by referring Article 247(7) of the Constitution but this will not help him, when the petition was taken
away from the jurisdiction of this Court illegally and even deceitfully after when it took cognizance of the prolonged
detention of the petitioner under section 40 of the FCR without requiring him to submit bond in accordance with the mandate of
the afore-said section. The learned A.A.-G also made a reference to the situation prevailing in the area, which, according to him, is
war like by every attribute, but it, to our mind, cannot influence the course of law, which is to remain alike whether it is war or peace.
Such phenomenon, thus, cannot defeat the enforcement of fundamental rights or even application of law. Nor can it deter the
Court from doing what it is required by law to do. Here I cannot do better than to quote the words of Lord Atkin who in the case of
Liverside-Vs-Anderson, while dealing with a similar situation held as under:--
"I view with apprehension the attitude of judges who, on a mere question of construction, when face to face with
claims involving the liberty of the subject, show themselves more executive minded than the executive...In England
amidst the clash of arms the laws are not silent. They may be changed but they speak the same language in war as in
6. With regard to the question of jurisdiction, I would like to refer to the celebrated judgment of Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of
Pakistan etc. PLD 1975 SC 66, wherein his lordship Mr. Justice Salahuddin, as he then was held as under:--
"It has been contended in this context that there is no remedy provided by the Constitution to enforce the rights and obligations
mentioned in Article 4. The contention is misconceived. In the first place, the injunctions contained in Article 4(2) are not only
mandatory but they are also clothed in prohibitory language which indicate that the provisions are self-executing and no legislation is
necessary to give effect to them. The rules of interpretation of a written Constitution as reproduced above support this view. Apart
from the question of any machinery to enforce the right or obligation, as I have said earlier, nobody is relieved of the
obligation to comply with them. In the second place, I am unable to conceive that a right or obligation so clearly and solemnly given
or put can be without a content, meaning or purpose. Unless, therefore, on an examination of the Constitution, I am led to the
inevitable conclusion that the Courts are powerless to enforce the inalienable right or the obligation mentioned in Article 4, I am of
the opinion that the Courts are bound to give the Article a meaning and a purpose. I have, however, already noticed that Article 199 of
the Constitution gives indeed wide powers to a High Court to act for the enforcement of the rights and obligations mentioned in
Article 4 of the Constitution."
While summing up his conclusion his lordship held as under:--
"Pakistan is governed by the rule of law, as embodied in Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution. The Constitution creates no right and
imposes no duty in vain.
Remedy or no remedy, nobody is relieved of his basic obligation to obey the Constitution and law.
Each one of the three organs of the State-the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary is bound by the oath not only
to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution but also to abide by the Constitution and the law.
The `will' of the Constitution is supreme, and nobody can be permitted to flout the `will'. It is inconceivable that the
Constitution be not followed. Anything done in violation of the Constitution is void and has no existence in law. No
violation of the Constitution can be tolerated.
Fundamental Rights are available throughout Pakistan including the Tribal Areas and the Superior Courts have
jurisdiction to enforce them within the limits of their respective territorial jurisdiction including the Tribal
A Fundamental Right not suspended under Article 233 of the Constitution remains fully operative, and every body in
Pakistan is under an obligation to respect it. The mere fact that an aggrieved person is temporarily prevented from
moving any Court for the enforcement of a Fundamental Right does not relieve an authority of its obligation to
comply with it.
A High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to grant relief to a person arrested illegally
within its jurisdiction although he is for the time being detained outside the jurisdiction.
A High Court has power to grant relief to a person, detained within its territorial jurisdiction although he was
arrested illegally outside the jurisdiction.
Where the liberty of a person is involved a High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the
Constitution and grant him relief even though he has misconceived his remedy and come up with an application
under sections 498 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Under Article 199 of the Constitution a High Court has a variety of powers, any one of which can be exercised to
grant relief to the aggrieved person.
Article 1999 of the Constitution is available not only for the enforcement of the Fundamental Right but also to enforce
the rights and obligations as contained in Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution.
Frontier Crimes Regulation is `existing law' under Article 268 of the Constitution and it is continued in force subject
to the Constitution and until altered, repealed or amended, etc.
Section 11 of the FCR is not `law' within the accepted connotation of the term, and is, therefore, not `law' as
contemplated in Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution. Where two kinds of procedures are applicable--one which is
normal, free from arbitrariness and consistent with reason and justice, and the other that is not so, the former should
7. It can thus be summed up that where fundamental rights are available even to the residents of tribal area and the provisions of
the Constitution guaranteeing them are not only mandatory but self executing, a High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the
Constitution to grant relief to a person incarcerated illegally. In case it is otherwise as it is contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents and learned A.A.-G, the fundamental rights with all their guarantees in the Constitution would be reduced to a farce,
which we are afraid, can never be the intent of its framers.
8. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith under 40 FCR and other offences
mentioned above on furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.4,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Tuesday directed the advocate general of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa...
The Pakistan Bar Council decided to amend its rules through which students would complete an LLB...
PESHAWAR: A division bench of the Peshawar High Court restrained the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa...
PESHAWAR: A division bench of the Peshawar High Court has issued notices to the provincial...
PESHAWAR: A senior judge of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday expressed dismay at the...
PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court (PHC) Mazhar Alam Miankhel observed on Thursday that the misuse of...
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court stayed the appointment process for the principal of Khyber...
PESHAWAR: A divisional bench of Peshawar High Court issued contempt of court notices on Monday...
PESHAWAR: The decision to place Peshawar Institute of Cardiology (PIC) under the Board of...
PESHAWAR: A local court on Saturday indicted a fashion model and her husband for sharing...
PESHAWAR: A Peshawar High Court bench on Wednesday stopped the provincial government from...
PESHAWAR: The Sarhad Development Authority Employees Federation (SDAEF) has served a legal...
PESHAWAR: A divisional bench of Peshawar High Court on Tuesday granted time to the...
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Tuesday stayed the process to appoint the Khyber Medical...
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Thursday directed the lawyer for PTI chairman Imran Khan to...
The Chief Accountant Officer BS 16 got stay order against the transfer order of another person...
Stay granted to Local Government appointees against the post of Sub- Engineers and Accountants by Peshawar High Court
The local government has conducted test and interview of the candidates for the post of account...
PESHAWAR: A Senior Attorney of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has challenged in Peshawar...