2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The main contentions of the advocate for the appellant are:- (i) There is no recovery, of .the alleged/extorted snatched amount of Rs.3,000 from the appellant. (ii) Neither a show-cause notice was issued nor any departmental inquiry held against him, prior to the issuance of impugned dismissal order. (iii) The other co-accused, has been reinstated (in appeal) in service whereas the appellant has not been reinstated in service and, as such it amounts to 'discrimination'. As such, the counsel for the appellant, requested for setting aside the impugned original/final orders with all past, service benefits. Learned A.A:-G., submitted that under rule 6, sub-rule (6) of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1988, Summary proceedings are permissible/in accordance with law. Since the appellant according to him 'accepted' his guilt before respondent No.3, there was no need for a departmental inquiry or issuance of a show-cause notice. He also referred to 1998 PLC (C.S.) page-794, and submitted that while considering the alleged discrimination it is necessary to protect the people at large. It is also an accepted principle that two (2) 'wrongs' cannot make one 'right'. He, therefore, pleaded that the appellant did not deserve any mercy/compassion and this appeal, be dismissed. We have gone through the arguments of both the sides carefully and perused the record. The appellant, in his appeal to D. I.-G./respondent No.2 comprising of 3 full escape pages has admitted at page 1 Annexures 'C', page 13 of this appeal that he (alongwith another constable) saw the complainant, dubiously looking around, brought him to the picket, made inquiries subjected him to a little violence (not beating) on which he said on Oath that he had come to Sukkur to see a person of his caste fellow, had no links with the criminals on which we let him go and no money was extorted from him'. What is evident from the above is that the appellant did arrest the complainant on 'suspicion' subjected, him to 'little violence' in his, own words. Here, we would like to. refer to the provisions of Cr.P.C. where the powers to arrest a person or search a person without warrant as vested with S.H.O./Station House Officer

but not to a police constables

the lowest formation in the Department. Further, it is the accepted legal position that an accused, while in police custody, is not to be tortured and this act has to be recorded specifically even while giving remand. Even if the complainant, was seen in dubious circumstances by the appellant, it was his duty to produce him before some responsible officer for investigations/questioning. He was also not empowered to subject the complainant to 'a little violence' in his own words

which appears to be jugglary of words. Lastly no enmity was alleged against the complainant or the reporting S.H.O. Since, the public complainant of extortions are rampant in national press, specially against the lower formations who prey on the poor common/semilitrate citizens, we regret to show any compassion in this case. We are in agreement with the A.A.-G. that summary proceedings are provided in the police Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules. Since the appellant accepted his 'guilt' verbally before the S. S. P. concerned, the highest ranking officer, of the District in the presence of the complainant as well as S.H.O. concerned, we have no reasons to disbelieve the same, specially when no enmity or prejudice is alleged against the S.H.O./S.S.P. concerned. Such malpractice by lower formations also need to be curbed with an iron hand, in the large public interest. We are also in agreement with the A.A.-G., to the extent that two wrongs do not make one right. We are also of the considered view that mere technicalities should not obstruct the process of justice. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the impugned original/appellate order. We would also like to direct the respondent No. 1 viz. I.-G. Police to call for the record of the other co-accused viz P.C. Allah Warayyo said to have been reinstated in appeal, and pass appropriate orders after proper re-examination of the entire record in suo motu proceedings. This appeal is dismissed with no orders as to the costs. Announced in open Court this 19th day of February, 1999 at Karachi. H. B. T./21/K(S. Trib) Appeal dismissed.