P L D 1999 Lahore 70 (PLP)

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to

5. Date of hearing: 24th September, 1998 This Constitutional petition has been filed by Mst. Hanifan Bibi for registration of a criminal case against Mubashar Hussain, Hameed alias Hameeda, Amanat Ali and Mst. Surraya under section 10/11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 380 of the P.P.C. It is alleged in the petition that on 10‑9‑1998, respondents Nos.2 to 5 abducted the petitioner's minor daughter named Farzana aged about 12/13 years with intention to commit Zina with her; that the accused persons had also taken away golden ornaments detailed in the written application (Annexure 'A') that the petitioner had submitted the written application before the S.H.O. through the Incharge Police Post (Niaz Beg); that the police had recovered the abductee from the accused persons on 16‑9‑1998, who made a statement before the police that she was subjected to Zina‑bil‑Jabr by Mubashar, Hameed and Amanat but the police neither registered a case, nor got the abductee medically examined; that the police did not get the statement o1 the abductee recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. due to influence of the accused party and that the abductee had been kept at the Police Post Niaz Beg since 16‑9‑1998.

2. The petition was instituted on 19‑9‑1998 and came up for hearing on 21‑9‑1998 for urgent hearing. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, respondent No. l was directed to appear in the Court alongwith the abductee on 22‑9‑1998. The office was directed to serve the order through a special messenger. However, the office acted with gross negligence and did not depute any special messenger. Instead, a letter was sent to respondent No: l through the ordinary mail. When the case was taken up for hearing before the interval on 22‑9‑1998, respondent No.l was not present. I told the learned A.A.‑G. to convey the order to respondent No.l on telephone to appear in the Court after the interval alongwith the abductee. The learned A.A.‑G. was able to establish contact with Bashir Ahmad, S.I. Incharge, Police Post Niaz Beg and conveyed the order to him. The S.1. personally appeared in the Court without bringing the abductee. He was again directed to bring the abductee and appear on the same day. Accordingly, he produced the abductee in the Court after about 1‑1/2 hours. The S.I. informed the Court that a criminal case had been registered vide F.I.R. No.314 on 20‑9‑1998, after institution of the writ petition and that he was the Investigating Officer in the case. He admitted that he had not sent the abductee for medical examination. This was an act of gross negligence on the part of Investigating Officer.

3. I recorded a brief statement of the abductee without questioning her about the facts relating to commission of offence by the accused persons. She gave her age as 13 years and stated that she was brought to the Police Post Niaz Beg on the last Tuesday (15‑9‑I Q0R) by Bashir Ahmad, S.I. alongwith other police officials. She was not got medically examined by the police till her production in the Court. In this view of the matter, I directed that the abductee be got medically examined through the office of Surgeon, Medico‑legal, Punjab. Accordingly she was medically examined by Lady Doctor Lubna Naseem, Woman Medical Officer, Office of the Surgeon, Medico‑legal Punjab, Lahore and a copy of the medico‑legal report was placed on the file of the present petition. The case was again taken up on 24‑9‑1998. On the said date, respondent No. 1, the S.H.O., Police Station Hanjarwal (Mian Saqib) as well as Bashir Ahmad, S.I. appeared in the Court. Although the criminal case had been registered but I proceeded to examine the question as to whether investigation was being conducted properly and whether any justification was made out for transferring the investigation to some other independent police officer. The petitioner's learned counsel strenuously urged that both the S.H.O. as well as the S.I. were in league with the accused persons; that after receiving the written application for registration of a case against the culprits the matter was deliberately delayed by the S.H.O. but he verbally told Bashir Ahmad, S.I. to take action in the matter; that the S.I. recovered the abductee on 15‑9‑1998 and kept her at the police post without registering a case and without deputing the lady police guards; that the petitioner has been asking the S.H.O. as well as S.I. to register a case and get her daughter medically examined but they did not do the needful; that the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition in this Court on 19‑9‑1998; that the police learnt about institution of the writ petition through some source and registered the case on 20‑9‑1998 but did not take proper steps for investigation; that the accused persons were not arrested although their addresses were known and at times they were seen with the police; that even the blood‑stained clothes of the abductee were produced before Bashir Ahmad, S.I./I.O. but he did not recover the same formally through a recovery memo. At this juncture, Bashir Ahmad, S. I. was called upon by me to state truthfully as to whether the blood‑stained clothes of the abductee were produced before him and if so why he had not taken the same into possession in accordance with the law. He stated that the clothes of the abductee were produced before him; that the clothes were NOT blood‑stained; that he had brought the clothes with him and kept the same outside the Court‑room. The petitioner's learned counsel submitted that the S. I. was telling a white lie and trying to mislead the Court. In order to verify the correct position 1 told the learned A.A.‑G. (Mr. Niaz Ahmad Khan) as well as the petitioner's learned counsel to see the clothes in the presence of the S.I. and inform the Court about the correct position. After about 10 minutes the learned A.A.‑G. and the petitioner's learned counsel appeared in the Court and stated that clothes of the abductee were clearly blood stained. When confronted with this situation the S.I. stated verbally called upon the S.I. to show cause as to why he be not punished for committing contempt of this Court under Article 204 of the Constitution read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 inasmuch as he had deliberately made a false statement after he was required by the Court to state the truth and his statement tended to prejudice due process of law in the case and due process of judicial proceedings in the petition. In reply he again stated that he had committed a mistake and may be pardoned in view of his 34 years' service in the Police Department. He also stated that he was going to retire in the near future. Since it had become evident that the investigation was not being conducted in a fair manner I felt that it required to be transferred to some other police officer. Therefore, I called the S.P., Saddar to appear in the Court, who accordingly appeared in the Court, took prompt action and transferred the investigation to Zahid Butt, D.S.P., Muslim Town, Lahore. The S.P. expressed regrets for the bad conduct of the S.I. and the S.H.O. and stated that he would take disciplinary action against them. At this juncture, I called upon Mr. Hussain Aziz Bhatti, Additional Advocate‑General to assist the Court in the matter of contempt proceedings against the S.I. He appeared before the Court and submitted that where contempt is committed in the face of the Court there is no need to issue a written show cause notice on record evidence and that the Court could call upon the contemner verbally to show‑cause as to why he be not punished for contempt of Court. If the explanation furnished is not satisfactory the contemner can be punished without recording evidence. In this connection he referred to the Full Bench judgment in the case of The State v. Muhammad Akbar Cheema PLD 1993 Lahore 658 which supports his argument.

4. The facts stated above show that the conduct of the S.I./I.O. was not fair in respect of the investigation of the case. He acted in a dare‑devil manner and told a white lie in the Court by saying that the clothes of the abductee were not blood‑stained. Presumably, he wanted to show that there was no need to take the clothes into possession as the same were not blood‑stained. Thus, he deliberately made a false statement which tended to prejudice the due process of A law in the case and due course of judicial proceedings in the present petition. He is clearly guilty of committing contempt of Court under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The S.I. is a Police Officer with vast experience of 34 years and was not expected to act in the unfair and shabby manner demonstrated by him in the case. If after 34 years of service he has not learnt how to conduct investigation in a criminal case and not to tell a lie in a Superior Court then what positive contribution can be expected to be made by him in the remaining period of his service.

5. Therefore, I convict him for offence under section 3 of Contempt of Court read with Article 204 of the Constitution and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month. The clothes of the abductee B retained in the Court be handed over to D.S.P., Muslim Town, Lahore (the new Investigating Officer), through the previous Investigating Officer (Bashir Ahmad, S.I.) The S.H.O., Police Station Hanjarwal, respondent No.l was present in the Court and was directed to arrest the accused and lodge him in the jail to serve out the term of his imprisonment.

6. The short order passed on 24‑9‑1998 will be read as a part of this order which contains the detailed facts of the case and reasons in support of the short order.

7. The S.P. will take appropriate disciplinary action against the S.H.O., Police Station Hanjarwal, respondent No.l as well as Bashir Ahmad, S.I. Incharge Police Post, Niaz Beg (Thokar Niaz Beg), Lahore and send intimation about the same through the Registrar of this Court. The petition is disposed of with the above order. N.H.Q./H‑67/L Order accordingly.