2004 PLP 56 (YLR)

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf is an Inspector Police and he remained posted as S.H.O., Saddar Pakpattan Sharif. Muhammad Khan real brother of respondent No.4 Yar Muhammad had gone to Pakpattan Sharif for offering "Salam" at the Mazar of Hazrat Baba Fareed‑ud‑Din Gang‑e‑Shakar" on 22‑4‑2003. He was arrested by Muhammad Yousaf petitioner and was kept in police station. He was also sent in handcuff through A.S.‑I. to the village to know about the correctness of the address given by said Muhammad Khan and A was kept in illegal confinement. When respondent No.4 approached the petitioner, he was directed to contact Muhammad Siddique Batterian Wala who demanded Rs.25,000 for the release of the brother of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 claimed to have arranged the said amount of Rs.25,000 and paid the same to Muhammad Siddique but in spite of that Muhammad Yousaf petitioner did not release Muhammad Khan, again respondent No.4 was directed to approach Muhammad Siddique Batterian Wala who demanded Rs.10,000 more and Rs.9,000 were also paid. It was also stated by respondent No., in the application moved to the learned Sessions Judge that Muhammad Khan was tortured and given beating as a result of which blood started oozing from the private parts of his body and he was put under the ruler and thereafter custody of brother or Muhammad Khan was handed over by the said S.H.O. to Muhammad Rafique. Inspector, Incharge C.I.A. Staff, who got him treated for one day and subsequently he was disappeared. It is also narrated by respondent No.4 that the torture on the brother of respondent No.4 was witnessed by Muhammad Tufail, Sher Khan. Shaaroon, Ajab Khan and Riasat Ali etc who being accused in criminal cases were also confined in the police lock‑up. After the receipt of the application, against petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge directed D.P.O., Pakpatan Sharif to hold an inquiry and as a result of the same the allegations leveled against the petitioner and other police officials have been found correct and besides recommendation for the departmental action, criminal case vide F.I.R. No.189 of 2003 has been registered. The learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif has also passed the order for the registration of the case against the petitioner by the Anti‑Corruption Department for receiving Rs.34,000 as illegal gratification which were' recovered during the course of inquiry.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Sessions Judge under section 22‑A, Cr.P.C. has no power to direct for the registration of the case to the Anti‑Corruption Department as the Anti‑Corruption Department has to hold an inquiry before the registration of the criminal case and has to, follow the rules, thus the direction is in violation of the Anti Corruption Rules. It. is further contended that periodical progress reports cannot be called by the, learned Sessions Judge. Relies upon Malik Shawkat Ali Dogar etc. v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani PLD 1994 SC page 281.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Subsection (6) of section 22‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code which has been inserted in the Cr.P.C. through recent amendment is reproduced as under:‑‑ "An Ex officio Justice of Peace may issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding‑‑ (i) non‑registration of criminal case; (ii) transfer of investigation from one police officer to another; and (iii) neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties. " From the bare perusal of subsection (6) or section 22‑A, Cr.P.C. it is clear that the learned Sessions Judges while acting as Justice of Peace are equally competent to issue appropriate direction regarding registration of case, transfer of investigation or any wrong done by the police authority in the performance of their duties.

5. In this case complaint was made by respondent No.4 against the petitioner and others to the learned Sessions Judge, who firstly got conducted inquiry into the allegations leveled therein through the D.P.O. and only when, as a result of the inquiry, the allegations have been found correct, has issued appropriate directions for the registration of criminal case against the petitioner as he is prima facie guilty of receiving illegal gratification from respondent No.4 in the performance of his duties, which amount has already been recovered from him during the course of inquiry. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Anti Corruption Establishment under the Rules is bound to first conduct inquiry and then case can be registered while direction for straightaway registration of the case is illegal. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan that Establishment of Anti‑Corruption Rules are only directory in nature and mere violation of the same is not sufficient to quash the F.I.R. or undo any action if otherwise the allegation is borne out from the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover the purpose of registration of the case is to set at motion the criminal proceedings and the accused can prove their innocence by leading evidence during the investigation. The case‑law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable as after the introduction of subsection (6) of section 22‑A, Cr.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge is equally competent to issue direction for registration of a criminal case. No periodical report into the progress of the investigation has been called for by the learned Sessions Judge but only an intimation has been sought regarding compliance of direction within fifteen days. I do not find any jurisdictional or legal defect in the impugned order, which has been passed quite competently.

6. I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine. However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court or the learned Sessions Judge will in no way influence the Investigating Officer who will conduct the investigation independently and impartially. Revision petition dismissed. H.B.T./M‑2291/L