Detention of acquitted persons a barbaric act: court

LAHORE
The Lahore High Court has observed that detention of the people by the Punjab government who have once been acquitted in the cases is barbarity and such approach will encourage people to commit more crimes in the society.
A two-judge bench headed by Shahid Hameed Dar made these remarks while hearing petitions of two persons Muhammad Shafiq and Farooq here on Friday.
The bench observed that if God forgives His people when they seek forgiveness from Him then what is the problem with the government which detains innocent people who had already been acquitted.
Muhammad Shafiq through his unsel had submitted that Punjab Home Department misused its powers and issued detention order for him. The petitioner’s counsel said that Shafiq had already been acquitted in the cases he had been booked with but the government had started issuing notices again which was unlawful.
A law officer on behalf of the government told the bench that there were still some cases against Shafiq; therefore, the department issued his detention order. He was not acquitted in all the cases, he submitted. On it, the petitioner’s counsel denied cases against his client and pointed out that the Punjab government does have powers to issue detention order of such people as the relevant law had been amended. The detention powers rest with the federal government after amendment to Section 11 of ATA, the petitioner’s counsel argued.
After hearing the arguments of both sides, the bench asked the law officer to present the notification of powers regarding the detention of the citizens. The court adjourned further hearing for three weeks.
Meanwhile, Justice Shahid Hamid Dar of the LHC sought reply from the Punjab government in a petition challenging detention of suspects and their inclusion in ATA forth schedule.
Qari Rehmat Ali had challenged the detention of citizens by the district governments in Punjab. The petitioner said that the law under which the DCOs were issuing detention orders had become ineffective.
DCOs were playing double role of judges and parties at the same time while issuing and rejecting the detention orders, he said. The petitioner stated that DCOs had no powers to issue detention orders.
A law officer opposed the arguments saying that after 18th Amendment, the powers had been delegated to the provinces. He said provinces and the DCOs could issue such notices. After hearing arguments of both parties, the bench asked the parties to come up with final arguments on the point and adjourned the hearing for the third week of November.