2004 PLP 447 (YLR)

Ss. 167 & 561-A

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/457

Quashing of order-- Refusal of Magistrate to remand accused to police custody on the ground that material on record did not-show that stolen rifle was in possession of accused and complainant had not disclosed his source of knowledge about commission of offence by accused-- Validity

Accused had been charged for the offence in initial report

F. I. R. need not to be a detailed document

Investigating Officer had sought remand to interrogate accused and recover stolen rife, which request should have been accepted-- Magistrate appeared to have acted under influence of Sessions Judge, whose conduct could not be in harmony with dignity and decorum of Courts of law, which are sanctuaries meant to protect rights and liberties of people and not to curb and curtail them by resorting to a process unbecoming of them

High Court quashed order of Magistrate and accepted request of police seeking remand of accused for three days with observation that in order to allay fears of complainant, further request of remand, if made by the police, would be decided by the Senior Civil Judge, in accordance with law. (e) Criminal. Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 154

First Information Report-- Object of

F.I.R. need not be a detailed document

Object of F. I. R. is to set Investigating Agency of the State in motion. (d) Administration of justice

Courts are sanctuaries meant to protect rights and liberties of people and not to curb and curtail them by resorting to a process unbecoming of them. Abdul Latif Khan Balouch for Petitioner. D.A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 16th October, 2003. Through this application, the petitioner seeks the quashment of order, dated 9-10-2003, passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby he refused the local police to grant physical custody of respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, lodged F.I.R. No.273 wherein he accused Ajmal and Faizullah (respondent No.2) for taking away licensed .303 bore rifle bearing No.9919. After arrest of Faizullah, the local police sought police custody of the respondent but the same was refused by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 9-10-2003 mainly on the ground that there is no material on record to indicate that the subject-matter of theft was in possession of the respondent and the complainant has not disclosed the source through which he came to know that the respondent had committed the theft of the rifle. It is a matter of common knowledge that in theft cases even those who are just suspected in the F.I.R. are remanded to police custody with the object of effecting recovery of the stolen property. Clearly, respondent Faizullah was charged for the offence in the initial report and indeed F.I.R. need not to be a detailed document. The F.I.R. is to set the Investigating Agency of State in motion. The Investigating Officer sought police remand on two-fold reasons. Firstly that investigation and interrogation of the accused is necessary and secondly to recover the stolen property. The reasons given by the Investigating Officer were good enough to accede to his request. The learned Deputy Advocate-General vehemently criticized the order of the Magistrate dated 9-10-2003 I and requested that on vacation of the impugned order, custody be granted so as to make progress in the investigation and also to make an effort for recovering the property. This being the position, the order of Magistrate dated 9-10-2003 is quashed and the request of the local police for police custody for three days in respect of respondent Faizullah is accepted. The Judicial Magistrate/respondent No.1 is directed to summon respondent No.2 from jail and hand over his custody to the concerned Investigating Officer with further clarification that the said accused is to be medically examined before and after the remand period. Since in the transfer application wherein serious allegations were made against the learned Sessions Judge as well as the Judicial Magistrate and also during the course of arguments of this petition the grievances were repeated, in order to allay the fears of the petitioner that future request of remand under section 167, Cr.P.C. if made by the investigating agency, be considered by Senior Civil Judge, D.I. Khan, who is to decide such request in accordance with law. The Judicial Magistrate, Lakki appears to have acted under the influence of the Sessions Judge Lakki, whose conduct, in the circumstances, cannot be in harmony with the dignity and decorum of the Courts of law which are sanctuaries meant to protect the rights and liberties of the people and not to curb and curtail them by resorting to a process unbecoming of them. The application stands accepted accordingly. S.A.K./1005/P Application accepted.