2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
DIG OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN
| Citation | 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed, C.J., Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | DIG OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN |
| Primary Law | Police Rules, 1934 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Police Rules, 1934 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed, C.J., Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (DIG OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq A. Mohal, Additional A.G., Punjab and Zaka Ullah, Inspector, Legal for Petitioners.
- Malik Matiullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- 2. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab contends that in the very terms of Rule 16(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 a police employee who is convicted of an offence could not be retained in service and his services are liable to be dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 10.05.2019 of Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No. 4717 of 2017)
R. 16.2
Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Ss. 13 & 20
Respondent, who was a junior clerk in office of District Police Officer, made a confession before the Judicial Magistrate in a case recorded against him under Ss. 13 & 20 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965
Respondent was accordingly sentenced, however his sentence was suspended and he was put on probation
Held, that respondent had himself confessed his guilt and was convicted and sentenced accordingly
In terms of the R. 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 he could not be awarded a punishment less than what had been provided in the said Rules i.e. dismissal from service
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, C.J.
The Respondent, Muhammad Irfan was employed as a Junior Clerk in the office of District Police Officer, Mianwali. Two FIRs were registered against him, one being FIR No.75 of 2012 dated 25.03.2012 under sections 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance at Police Station Saddar, Mianwali. In this very case FIR, the Respondent has appeared before a Judicial Magistrate (Section 30), Mianwali on 19.03.2014, made a confessional statement and also sought pardon. The Judicial Magistrate upon such confession recorded a conviction against the Respondent under sections 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to one year's S.I. However, such sentence was suspended and the Respondent was put on probation on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.
2. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab contends that in the very terms of Rule 16(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 a police employee who is convicted of an offence could not be retained in service and his services are liable to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent was confronted with the above narrated position. He has nothing to say in response to the same, however prays that a lenient view may be taken against the Respondent.
4. We have noted that the Punjab Service Tribunal ("the Tribunal") has proceeded altogether on erroneous grounds in coming to the conclusion that the criminal case against the Respondent resulted in his acquittal, whereas such is not the case on record. The Respondent himself having confessed his guilt and then having been convicted and sentenced in terms of the Rules noted above could not be awarded the punishment less than what has been provided in the Rules i.e. dismissal from service. Learned counsel for the Respondent was unable to support the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.
5. Consequently, by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2019, we convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same. C.M.As. are also disposed of accordingly. MWA/D-1/SC Petition allowed.