P L D 2002 Lahore 157 (PLP)

S. 9

Criminal. Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.54 & 156(2)-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199

Constitutional petition

Quashing of F.I.R.

Police on receipt of a credible information had apprehended the accused while in possession of a huge quantity of "Charas" weighing 19000 Kgs.

No mala fides had been alleged against the police for false involvement of accused in the offence

Technicalities could not stand in the way of finalization of the investigation or the disposal of cases

High Court, under its Constitutional jurisdiction, could pass the order to help the administration of justice and not in aid of injustice

Police Officer was duty bound under S.54, Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused without any warrant of arrest on a credible information against him for the commission of the cognizable offence who had been rightly arrested

Police Officer of C.I.A. Staff could not register the case which could only be registered at a police station having the jurisdiction where the offence had been committed-- Proceedings taken by the police officer of C.I.A. Staff could not be challenged as per S.156(2), Cr.P.C. at any stage on the ground that he was not empowered to investigate

Technicalities could not stand in the way of finalisation of investigation or disposal of cases

F.I.R. could not be quashed and the investigation stayed on such score alone when, no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1971, the petitioner seeks stay of the investigation in case F.I.R. No.256 of 2001 registered on 30-9-2001 at Police Station Gowalmandi, on the statement of Zaheer Ahmad, S.-I. wherein it has been reported that hie received an information that one International Smuggler of Heroin Muhammad Asif son of Pervaiz Akhtar petitioner has brought huge quantity of narcotics from Dara Adam Khel and has kept the same in his house situato at 86-Katcha Nisbat Road; that this quantity of narcotics was to be smuggled to India and that if a raid is conducted, the said narcotic items can, be recovered. On the receipt of this informatbn a raiding party was constituted which yeas headed by Zaheer Ahmad, S.-I. of C.I.A. Cantt., Lahore and they watched the movement outside the house of the petitioner. One person while having a bag in his hand came out of the house, he was apprehended and his name subsequently was known as Muhammad Asif son of the petitioner. When the plastic bag was checked, 19 packets of Charas weighing 1000 grams were recovered. 19000 grams of Charas.was recovered in total, hence report was prepared and sent to Police Station Gowalmandi where the case has been registered.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the C.I.A. Authorities cannot investigate the case hence the action taken by the complainant and the subsequent investigation being conducted by Pervaiz Hussain Butt of C.I.A. is illegal and unlawful which may be declared so and the respondents may be restrained from investigating the case in the abovesaid F.I.R. It is further contended that the petitioner's son has already filed Writ Petition No.19294 of 2001 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.7218/B of 2001 which are pending before the Division Bench of this Court. He further contends that the petitioner is a respectable citizen of Pakistan and fundamental rights have been guaranteed to him protecting his dignity and to be treated in accordance with law and the C.I.A. Officer has no authority to investigate the case, hence tote F. I. R. may be quashed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not sufficient to restrain the respondents from investigating the case and for the quashment of the F.I.R. A credible information was received by the complainant on the A basis of which a raiding party was constituted and they apprehended the son of the petitioner Muhammad Asif while in possession of a huge quantity of 19000 Kgs. Charas, Not a single word has been uttered about the mala fides on the part of the respondents for the false involvement of the son of the petitioner in such a heinous offence and for planting such a huge quantity of Charas upon him. The technicalities cannot stand in the way of finalization of the investigation or the disposal of the cases. This Court can pass the order to help the administration of justice and not to pass the orders in aid of injustice. The Police Officer is duty-bound under section 54 of the Cr.P.C. to arrest a person without the order of the Magistrate and without any warrant of arrest against whom a credible information has been received for the commission of the, cognizable offence hence the complainant in this case who received the information about the involvement of the son of the petitioner and also having in possession of huge quantity of narcotics has rightly arrested said Muhammad Asif while in possession of Charas. There is no cavil to the proposition that the Police Officer of C.I.A. Staff cannot register the case as the case can only be registered at a Police Station having the jurisdiction where the offence has been committed. In the case in hand the C.I.A. Authorities have not registered the case at any C.I.A. Police Station and the information was sent for the registration of the case to Police Station Gowalmandi having the jurisdiction of the said territory where the offence has been committed and Muhammad Asif was apprehended. Subsection (2) of section 156, Cr.P.C. expressly provides "that no proceedings of a Police Officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate". As the question raised regarding the investigation by the C.I.A. Staff has been answered under subsection (2) of section 156, Cr.P.C, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed and the investigation stayed on this score alone. Since the petitioner has failed to show any prejudice caused to his son resulting in miscarriage of justice, in view of the provisions of section 156(2), Cr.P.C. we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./P-73/L Petition dismissed.