P L D 2002 Karachi 494 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 19th April, 2002. Comments have been filed by Mr. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo learned Additional Advocate‑General on behalf of S.H.O., Police Station Waleed and the said S.H.O. Imtiaz Ali Shaikh is also present in Court. A copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.25 of 2002 of Police Station Waleed, District Larkana has been annexed to the statement of S.H.O. The F.I.R. has been lodged by one Nisar Ahmed, Assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Larkana wherein the allegations are that one inmate of Jail; Sajjad committed suicide and injured himself. The F.I.R. has been recorded by A.S.I. Maqbool Chandio of the said police station and the investigation is being conducted by A.S.‑I. Zubair Ahmad Soomro which is in progress. The petitioner herein namely Aijaz Ali has, however, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Islamic Republic of Pakistan giving a different set of facts alleging that his brother Sajjad Ali, who was an undertrial prisoner in Central Prison, Larkana was beaten by jail authorities on 9th and 10th of April, 2002 and his condition had become seriously dangerous. He obtained a letter from the trial Court namely VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana and delivered the same to the jail authorities whereafter Sajjad Ali was shifted to C.M.C. Hospital, Larkana. He has further alleged that Sajjad Ali was unconscious but when he regained senses he gave facts to the petitioner which are described in the petition at para. No.6 in following terms: "That U.T.P. Sajjad Ali when gained consciousness told the petitioner that proposed accused No.2: Ali Hassan Bozdar who is now U.T.P. and confined in the Central Prison, Larkana (and also cousin of the complainant in the above Case No.231 of 2000 in which Sajjad Ali is the main accused is on friendly terms with proposed accused No. 1 and on the instance of accused No.2, the proposed accused No. l himself and with the help of proposed accused Nos.4 to 8 had tied his hands and legs and beaten him miserably for two days with leather belt and Dandas, his spinal cord is damaged and lower limbs (lower part of ‑the body) not functioning." Founded on these allegations, he has sought relief by way of direction to S.H.O., Police Station Waleed to register the case and also al direction about the judicial enquiry. At the outset Mr. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo learned Additional Advocate‑General submitted that an F.I.R. of the same incident has already been registered but however, on being pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court has held that even 3rd F.I.R. can be recorded, he submitted that the police has to take action in accordance with law. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is further clarified that no doubt a different set of circumstances has been laid down in the petition but this Court, would refrain from commencing upon genuineness or otherwise of the allegations nor would an opinion be recorded that particular person is guilty. Therefore, notwithstanding these reservations it may be observed that it is indefeasible right of every citizen and so also of the petitioner as enjoined in Article 4 of the. Constitution that he should be dealt with in accordance with law. A question arises as to whether second F.I.R. can be registered relating to the same incident. This point was thoroughly examined in Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh PLD 1997. Kar. 119 and the issue was elaborately discussed. After reviewing a good number of precedents, the relevant observations were made in the following terms, and the police was directed to register the third F.I.R. "Therefore, is registration of a third F.I.R. warranted under the law? The circumstances of the present case, however, indicate that while the first F.I.R, was registered at the instance of a police officer who was suspected of being an accused himself in the case by the petitioners, the second F.I.R. was registered at the instance of Asghar Ali, the private servant of petitioner No. l after four days of the occurrence when he was still in the custody of the police. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the two F.I.Rs. registered by the police do not reflect the true facts of the case, does not appear to be unreasonable. It is also pertinent to point out that the petitioners wanted to name certain police officers as some of the culprits, who, according to petitioners, had participated in the said crime and a definite role has been attributed to them in the proposed F.I.R." The above principles fully apply to this case. In view of the principles laid down in Imran Ashraf v. The State 2001 SCMR 424 as also in the above‑cited case a legal obligation was cast on Police Officer to take action within the meaning of section 154, Cr.P.C. when information is laid before him. Accordingly, it is directed that as and when petitioner appears before the S. H. O. respondent No. l and makes a statement, the same shall be recorded and if a cognizable offence is made out within the meaning of section 154, Cr.P.C. the case be registered accordingly in case the S.H.O., Police Station Waleed forms an opinion otherwise he should record reasons for the same and furnish a copy thereof to the petitioner free of cost. Mr. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, learned Additional Advocate‑General concedes to this legal position. The petition is allowed in above terms. H.B.T./A‑344/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.