2011 PLP 1471 (YLR)
GULZAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1471 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, J |
| Parties | GULZAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Police Order (22 of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1471 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Police Order (22 of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1471 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1471 (YLR) (GULZAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Shahid Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 18(6)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/148/149
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Qatl-e- amd
Petitioner had assailed order by virtue of which, respondent, on the recommendation of the Board constituted under Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002 had transferred the investigation of case registered with Police. Station in District `D' to range crime `F'
Contention of counsel for the petitioner was that under Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002, first investigation had to be changed within the same range; whereas respondent had transferred the first investigation of the petitioner's case from one region to range crime which was in violation of the rules and regulations
Provision of Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002 was not mandatory and did not require that the first investigation must in all circumstances be changed within the same range
Investigation in the case was transferred after due deliberation and recommendation by a Board headed by a senior officer who recorded reasons for change of the investigation
Required procedure had been followed and the transfer of investigation was not mala fide
Counsel for the petitioner had not been able to satisfy as to how the petitioner, who was accused of offence under Ss.302, 148 & 149, P.P.C., was aggrieved of the order for transfer of investigation
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J.
The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order dated 19-9-2009 by virtue of which respondent No.1, on the recommendation of the Board constituted under Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002, has transferred the investigation of case F.I.R. No. 219 registered with Police Station Noshera Virkan, District Gujranwala, to Range Crime, Faisalabad.
2. While referring to Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, the learned counsel contends that under the said Article the first investigation has to be changed within the same range; whereas respondent No. 1 has transferred the first investigation of the petitioner's case from one region to Range Crime Faisalabad, which is in violation of the rules and regulations.
3. I have gone through the provisions of Article
18. I do not find any mandatory provision in the said Article which requires that the first investigation must in all circumstances be changed within the same range. Article 18(6), of the Order provides as follows:
"Investigation shall not be changed except after due deliberations and recommendations by a Board headed by an officer not below the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and two Superintendents of Police, one being Incharge of the Investigation of the concerned district: Provided that the final order for the change of investigation shall be passed by head of investigation in the general police area who shall record reasons for change of such investigation. "
4. A perusal of the said Article indicates that an investigation is transferred after due deliberation and recommendation by a Board headed by a senior officer who is required to record reasons for change of such investigation. It has neither been alleged nor argued before this Court that the aforesaid procedure has not been followed or that the transfer of investigation is mala fide. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the petitioner, who is admittedly accused of offence under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C., is aggrieved of the order for transfer of investigation. In the circumstances narrated above, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./G-84/L Petition dismissed.