1982 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Anwar for the State. Date of hearing : 10th October, 1973. A. S. I. 2ahoorud Din of Burewala Police Station has brought today a copy of the calendar of the case under section 107/150, Cr. P. C. which was drawn up by A. S,

1. Ghulam Rasul Burewala. The A. S. I. states that there is no other record relating to this petitioner in the Police Station. He again denies that be enquired Into the application presented by the petitioner for registration of case for the theft of his tubewell in August, 1972 to D. I.‑G. He also states that there is no police record relating to the bad character of the petitioner. It is, however, submitted that investigation is going :)n in the case registered under section 380, P. P. C. on petitioners Application in July, 1973.

2. I find that there is lot of substance in the grievance ventilated in this petition. It is admitted in the report sent by the Superintendent of Police that an application was sent by the petitioner to the D. I.‑G in August, 1972. which was enquired into by A. S. I. Zahoorud Din and was found to be frivolous. This statement made in the report sent by the S. P. is contradicted by A. S. I. Zahoorud Din who has categori. cally denied that he had made an enquiry in the application regarding theft of tubewell submitted to the D. I.‑G. by the petitioner in August, 1972. The case under section 380, P. P. C. was registered only after the A petitioner had approached this Court after a delay about ten days. 11 appears from the entry in the roznamcha of the Police Station Burewala dated 24th of July, 1973 that the calendar drawn under section 107/150, Cr. P. C. was handed over to the Prosecuting Inspector Vehari by A. S. I. Ghulam Rasul. We have on record the report of the learned Assistant Commissioner that no such calendar has been filed in his Court as yet. It appears that the Prosecuting Inspector is sitting over this calendar for reasons best known to him but the situation aloes suggest contrivance on some body's part.

3. I also find that the report submitted by the S. P. is tendentious and was calculated to mislead this Court. In para 13 of the above report the petitioner has been described as a bad character and a mischievous type of person. There is no record to substantiate this opinion. It was also stated in this para that the petitioner and his son were challaned under section 186, P. P. C. and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, but the fact that both of them were discharged B by order dated 27th of July, 1971, appears to have been purposely suppressed.

4. The report is signed‑ by the S. P. Multan, and ordinarily he should be held responsible for the mis‑statement contained therein. I would, therefore, direct that the S. P. shall furnish his explanation to this Court for sending a wrong and tendentious report.

5. I also direct that a case shall be registered on the basis of the application presented by the petitioner to the D. I. G. Police in August, 1972. After registration, this case and the case under section 380, P. P. C shall be sent to the Crimes Branch for investigation. The S P. shall also obtain the explanation of Prosecuting Inspector for his failure to file the calendar under section 107/150, Cr. P. C. in Court for about three months. The report of the S. P. shall be received within three weeks. (Order on 29th November, 1973)‑-- The reply from the Superintendent of Police, Multan, has been received. He submits that the report sent to High Court was signed by him in the belief that his subordinates had stated correct farts therein. He further submits that disciplinary action is being taken against the officials concerned. He has further tendered an unqualified apology. In view of these facts I do not feel that any further proceedings are necessary. The papers may consigned to the record room. A copy of this order be sent to the S. P., Multan in the hope that in future he will pay more personal attention to the matters relating to the High Court. Order accordingly.