P L D 2006 Karachi 655 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.

The applicants along with other accused persons were nominated in F.I.R. Crime No.42 of 2005 Police Station Daur, registered on the complaint of Nadir under sections 302, 148, 149, 114, 504, P.P.C. After investigation the names of the applicants were placed in Column No.2 by the police. It appears that on an application moved on behalf of the complainant under section 193, Cr.P.C., the applicants were directed by Sessions Judge Nawabshah to join trial as accused persons vide his order dated 28-3-2006. The applicants being aggrieved have called in question the legality and propriety of the said order. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that applicant Jabbar has remained under treatment at Karachi and has produced such Certificate before the police. The applicant Shafique was also at Karachi along with the co-accused Abdul Jabbar and such affidavits of two persons of Karachi were produced before the police. Besides the police recorded statements of three independent witnesses which revealed that the present applicants were not available that the scene of occurrence and were away at Karachi. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has criticised the conduct of police in recording the statements in defence of the applicants during the investigation and has contended that the Investigation Officer acted in a partial and unfair manner. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant submits that the certificates and the affidavits were bogus and Were manipulated and obtained at a belated stage to benefit the accused persons. He supported the impugned order, arguing that the police acted illegally to damage the case of the complainant. The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused. The incident has taken place on 28-9-2005. The F.I.R. was registered on the same day. The applicants were nominated as accused persons in the F.I.R. and the specific roles and overt acts done by them were described therein. The Investigating Officer proceeded to collect the material not, for the purpose of conducting impartial investigation but to favour the accused persons. The medical certificate purported to have been issued by a doctor was taken into consideration which was issued on 21-10-2005. Neither it contained the qualification of the doctor nor his registration number or proper address. The date mentioned therein was apparently tampered with which could be noticed with naked eye. The medical certificate apparently appeared to be dubious. The affidavits of Muhammad Siddiq and Bashir Ahmed were also sworn on 22-10-2005 and appeared to be managed by some relative of the accused persons. The police did not make any effort to arrest the accused persons, instead provided them illegal protection. Seemingly the applicants were formally shown to have been arrested on 25-10-2005 after ensuring that the report regarding placing their names in Column No.2 was duly approved by higher police official, and they were released then and there, which was again beyond the authority of the police. The perusal of the order passed by the trial Court reveals that the conclusion arrived by the trial Court was legal and valid. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the Advocate for the applicants in the impugned order. Consequently the order dated 2-3-2006 is maintained, and the revision application is dismissed being without merit. Before parting with this order it may be observed that the Investigating Officer of the case conducted the investigation in a dishonest manner, obviously with the sole purpose of favouring the accused persons. He proceeded to examine the witnesses in defence of the accused persons, mentioning them as independent witnesses. Not only, that, he examined the witnesses in support of accused persons, but mentioned them in the list of prosecution witnesses. This was evidently done in order to destroy the case of the prosecution. For all the above reasons, the Investigating Officer has rendered himself liable to disciplinary action under the Service Rule so also exposed himself to penal action under the relevant provisions of Pakistan Penal Code and Police Order. Let a copy of this order be sent to Provincial Police Officer, Sindh and Regional Police Officer Hyderabad, for proceeding against the police officer concerned in accordance with the provisions of law, as observed in the preceding paragraph. H.B.T./A-96/K Revision dismissed.