P L D 1994 Lahore 521 (PLP)

The S.P. has sought more time to 'make report. A lame excuse.

2. The contents of the, petition, orders dated s9‑5‑1994 and 24‑5‑199 have beers appreciated. To help the Court Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, Asstt. A.‑G, has also attended the Court on Court call: This was considered all the more necessary in view of the conduct, of Raja Liaqat Ali, S.L, P.S. Depalpur City.

3. It is clear that on the Habeas' Corpus petition being filed on 19‑5‑1994 a bailiff of the Court was deputed to recover the, two alleged datenus, namely Mohammed Ashraf arid Mohammed Aslam as well as their 14 cattle heads. The bailiff reported that Aslam was present' in the barrack, of the police at the time of raid, no case had been registered against him and Ashraf was not available. According to his report Aslarri had informed him that Ashraf had been taken away by the police from the police station at 12‑00 noon on that very day. When he (Aslarn), appeared before the Court alongwith the bailiff on 24‑5‑1994 he did not support this version and his position was that Ashraf was not taken into custody by the Police officers. He (Aslam) rather implicated respondents Nos.3 to 6 as having accompanied the Police Officers when he was taken into custody along with the 14 cattle heads. Adam being not required in any case, he would remain free though he is oat present in Court today. So far as Ashraf detenu is' concerned, it seems a moot point whether he was talon into custody by the police because it is denied by the Police as well as the other respondents and there seems to be force in the denial in view of the statement of Aslam made in Court and incorporated in the order dated 24‑5‑1994. Thus so far as the Habeas Corpus petition regarding the two alleged detenus is concerned, it stands disposed of.

4. Before parting with the petition serious notice must be taken of the unhealthy, unethical, immoral, cruel and totally illegal practice having developed with the Punjab Police i.e. rounding up the detention of the cattle of the people without any orders from the Court concerned. Liaqat Ali. S.I. rounded up 14 cattle heads of the petitioner's family on 11‑5‑1994 under section 550, Cr.P.C. as now claimed in case F.LR. No. 160 dated 9‑9‑1989 of his Police Station. When asked the S.I. stated that the copy of the F.LR. was not with him but now when the learned Asstt. A.‑G. has entered appearance 'to help the Court and record of the case F.LR. No. 160 was asked for the same has been produced. It is not having copy of the F.LR. but the very fist case diary dated 9‑9‑1989 and the site‑plan prepared by the then investigator 'clearly show that only one buffalo of Ahmad Ali, the complainant of the case had been stolen. If one buffalo had been stolen in 1989 how the Sub‑Inspector could have taken hold of the 14 cattle heads of the petitioner's family?

5. The case diary further indicates that on three different occasions three suspected persons were arrested in the case, recovery could not be effected and all the three suspects when produced. in Court were let off. Finally the case was filed as untracked on 15‑11‑1989.

6. Thereafter not a single case diary has been recorded till 10‑5‑1994 when the Sub‑Inspector‑ recorded the statements of five persons, namely, Muhammad Abbas, Shahamad, Barkat Ali, Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Yar, to the effect that Muhammad Arif, the petitioner was involved in innumerable cases of murder, attempt at murder, Zina and thefts, if arrested, stolen property was expected to be recovered. Now even if these statements are accepted as correct that would not imply that the 14 cattle heads of petitioner's family, in any manner, could be considered as stolen or suspected to be stolen. There was no material at all with the Sub‑Inspector to round up the cattle under section 550, Cr.P.C. The very action from the very start is, therefore, illegal and male fide.

7. Not only this but the illegal conduct further continues. When any property (including the cattle heads) alleged or suspected to have been stolen, is taken into possession by the police officer under section 550, Cr.P.C. he is at once to report the matter to the officer incharge of the police station but no report in writing was made to the S.H.O. though the claim of the S.H.O. and the S.I. is that an oral report was made. As already pointed out the cattle heads were rounded up lay the. Sub‑Inspector on 11‑5‑1994 and these were with the Police till 19‑5‑1994 when the bailiff raided the police station. Till then no order from any Court abort the disposal thereof had been obtained. Under section 523, Cr.P.C. seizure of property by the police officer is to be forthwith reported to the Magistrate and order obtained. The illegal practice that has developed regarding the misuse of the provisions of section 550, Cr.P.C. in the Province must be severely dealt with, of not by the higher police officers or the subordinate Courts, by the High Court in inherent " jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure, Code as well as the Constitution of the country.

8. As, per Article 4 of the Constitution every citizen has the inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law and no action detrimental to, life, liberty, body, reputation or property can be taken except in accordance with law. Under Article 24 of the Constitution no person is to be deprived of his Q property, except in accordance with law. Equality before law and equal protection of law is guaranteed to every citizen, under Article

25. If the Constitution is guaranteeing such wide protection o the citizens. why not the r same protection to the cattle and animals of the country?

9. Since the action of the Sub‑Inspector is clearly mala fide, illegal and unconstitutional and rather is bordering upon cruelty to the animals which cannot even raise voice in Courts like citizens, his conduct must be censured and he, be severely dealt with. Of course, suit for damages against him would lie but that would entail much expense, labor and time. It is the Constitutional obligation of‑ this Court to provide protection to the citizens in accordance with E law of the land and so to compensate the petitioner the Sub‑Inspector is burdened with Rs.1,000 as fine/damages per cattle head unless he can establish in a Court of law that the cattle heads or any of those were stolen. He is directed to deposit the amount of damages/fine with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a fortnight. He would be at liberty to establish' his claim as to any of the cattle heads being stolen within a period of three months, otherwise the money would be paid to the petitioner.

10. The conduct of the S.H.O. also calls for severe departmental action 'inasmuch as he must have been cognizant of the fact that cattle heads were _ there in the cattle pond in the police station and that too without any order r from the Court and he should have been careful in the discharge of his duties. Departmental action be initiated against him.

11. At this stage Muhammad Aslam, the alleged detenu has appeared in Court. He is set free. Disposed of.

12. Advocate‑General to send as copy of the order to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab and the Chief Secretary to the Government of, the Punjab for issuing strict instructions to the subordinate police officers to understand the provision of sections 550 and 523, Cr.P.C. property and to apply the same strictly: N.H.Q./M‑1679/L order accordingly