1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Laws Cited

Representation

• M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑This appeal is directed against the order of Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, dated 17‑2‑1975 dismissing the appellant from service, and the order of Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, dated 10‑10‑1975, rejecting his appeal against the same. The appellant is also aggrieved by the order of the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, dated 30‑12‑1975, rejecting his Mercy Petition against the afore said two orders. The allegations against the appellant were that he arrested one Muhammad Sadiq, a private servant of Ch. Shamim Ahmed, Advocate of Sahiwal, on 18‑5‑1974 and complanted the recovery and unlicensed pistol and one live and one missed cartridge on him and registered falsely a case against him vide F. I. R. No. 174 at Police Station `A' Division, Sahiwal under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Act, 1965. Initially, a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the appellant under the orders of the I. G. Police, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Sahiwal, who found the allegations against the appellant true. It may be pertinent to point out that during the course of enquiry, Hamad Ali and Muhammad Aslam the eye‑witnesses to the recovery of pistol and cartridges from Muhammad Sadiq aforesaid, disowned their statements made under section 161, C. P. C. in the criminal case against Muhammad Sadiq. Subsequently, a formal enquiry was conducted by Mr. Baqar Ali Shah P. I. (Headquarters) Sahiwal, who recorded the statements of P. W. 1 Awais Bakhsh. Station House Officer, Police Station Shahkot Ch. Shaminm Ahmad Advocate, Raja Aurangzeb Khan. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter) who relied upon the affidavits of Hamad Ali and Muhammad Aslant to the effect that the recovery was false and they were made to sign on blank papers gave the findings that the appellant was guilty, who was eventually dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, and his appeal to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police and Mercy Petition to the Inspector‑General Police, was also rejected. Hence the present appeal was instituted before this Tribunal on 24‑1‑1976. The principal contention raised by the appellant was that Hamad Ali and Muhammad Aslant were the two eye‑witnesses to the reco very of the unlicensed pistol and two cartridges from Muhammed Sadiq servant of Ch. Shamim, Ahmad Advocate, who were not examined by any of the Inquiry Officers. It was further alleged that their affidavits had been obtained by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the preliminary enquiry and got their signatures on blank papers. Thus the appellant had not been guilty of any misconduct as alleged against him. In the interest of justice, we summoned Mr. Hamad Ali and Muhammad Aslant and the were examined by this Tribunal on 14‑2‑1977. and the Government Pleade duly instructed by the department was allowed to cross‑examine them Both the witnesses categorically stated that Muhammad Sadiq was apprehended on 18‑5‑1974 at 1‑00 a. m. (mid‑night) in Chowk Mission, Sahiwal City in their presence, the appellant recovered an unlicensed pistol and two cartridge from his possession. They also stated that they never made the statements before any person or Court that their signatures were obtained on blank papers by the appellant or the S. H. O. concerned. They rather stated that their signatures had been obtained by the D. S. P. concerned on blank papers and he never gave any affidavit or appeared before any Oath Commissioner. After examining the aforesaid two persons, we are distinctly of the view that their evidence knocks the bottom out of the prosecution case. In fact they were the only eye‑witnesses to the recovery of unlicensed pistol and two cartridges from the person of Muhammad Sadiq. During the departmental proceedings, they were not examined. In fact, their affidavits were relied upon which they have categorically denied to have ever executed. In fact the Government Pleader could not extract anything from them to support the prosecution case. The grievance of the appellant was that their affidavits could not be made use of by the departmental authorities, as the appellant hack not been given any opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses. But before us the aforesaid two witnesses supported the case of the appellant. In the circumstances, we find that the evidence on record clearly supports the case of the appellant. We therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the departmental authorities. Consequently, the appellant shall stand re‑instated in service. The appellant will also be entitled to Costs which is fixed up to Rs. 100.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree