Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS Respondent: PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION
1988 P L C 954
1988 P L C 954
[Lahore High Court]
Before Afrasiab Khan, J
MUHAMMAD AFZAL
Versus
PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION and others
Criminal Miscellaneous No.648‑H of 1987, decided on 23rd December, 1987.
West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss. 23 & 66‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.491‑‑Habeas corpus petition‑‑Petitioner, clerk of brick kiln, taken into custody for non‑payment of contribution to Social Security Institution‑‑No lawful justification found to apprehend detenu without having registered any case against him‑ Petitioner, even otherwise, being simply a clerk employed by owner of brick kiln could not be held responsible for payment of dues which were to be paid by owner of brick kiln to Institution‑‑Petitioner, held, was illegally and improperly detained and hence set at liberty‑‑Institution might proceed in matter for recovery of amount against owner or anybody else responsible for payment of the dues.
Ghous Muhammad Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Muhammad Younas Khokhar for Respondent.
Atta Muhammad, Bailiff with detenu, present in person.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, has moved this Habeas Corpus petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. for the recovery and production of the detenu, Muhammad Yasin son of Muhammad Ibrahim, before this Court so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law.
The abovesaid detenu has been recovered and produced before this Court today. The bailiff has also submitted the detailed report which discloses that the detenu was taken into custody on 23‑12‑1987 in spite of his protest that he was neither a partner nor owner of any brick kiln and nothing was due from him to the respondents. I have recorded the statement of the detenu. He stated that he is simply a clerk employed by the owners of the brick kiln. However, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the detenu is acting as an agent on behalf of owners of the brick kiln. He states that under law any Manager, representative or agent can be taken into custody if the amount required is not paid to the respondents. I do not find any lawful justification with respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to apprehend the detenu without having registered any case against him. Even otherwise the detenu is simply a clerk employed by the owner of the brick kiln. Under law he cannot be held responsible for the payment of the dues which dues are to be pail by the owner of the brick kiln to the respondents. This being A the position, the detenu was illegally and improperly detained by the respondents.
Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The detenu is set at liberty. The respondents may proceed in the matter for the recovery of the amount against the owners or anybody else who is responsible for payment of the dues. With this observation this petition is disposed of.
S.Q./M‑771/L.
Petition allowed.