1998 PLP 1014 (MLD)

Muhammad lqbal F.C. who had been entrusted the parcels of this case for transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner appeared as P.W.6 and verified that fact. Jam Muhammad Aslam, S.I. who was S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines during the investigation of this case appeared as P.W.5. He stated that he had recorded the statement of Liaqat Ali and Muhammad Iqbal P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C. and had submitted a complete challan to the Court. During cross-examination he stated that although case was registered at Civil Line but as recoveries had been effected by Naveed Ikram, S.I./S.H.O. Police Station Baghdadul Jadeed. He had investigated the case. He expressed inability to state whether he (Naveed Ikram) had obtained permission from any superior police officer for investigating the case. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. had denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. He stated as follows, in answer to the question, would you like to say anything else:-- He declined to make statement on oath under subsection (2) of section 340, Cr.P.C. and did not produce any evidence in defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant after going through the evidence criticized the impugned judgment and contended hat Naveed Ikram, S.I./S.H.O. could not have investigated this case as the occurrence had taken place within the area of Police Station Civil Lines, in that regard he referred to Rule 1, Chapter 25 of the Police Rules. Learned counsel contended that the appellant was involved falsely by Naveed Ikram, S.I./S.H.O., as he had annoyed him by objecting to the release of one Mithu Qasai after receiving bribe, that all the recovery witnesses in this case were police officials and so they cannot be relied upon and that as the parcel was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner after 14 days no reliance can be placed about the authenticity of the result from the office of the Chemical Examiner as possibility of substitution of the parcel was there, In this regard learned counsel placed reliance on 1994 P Cr. L J 2405. Learned counsel for the State defended the judgment and submitted that the prosecution had proved the case beyond any shadows of doubt.

6. Police Rule 1 of Chapter 25 reads as follows:-- "25.1. Power to investigate.--(1) An Officer-in-Charge of a police station is empowered by section 156, Criminal Procedure Code, to investigate any cognizable offence which occurs within the limits of his jurisdiction. (2) He is also empowered under section 157(1), Criminal Procedure Code, to depute a subordinate to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offenders. Any Police Officer may be so deputed under this section, but where a police officer under the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector is deputed the investigation shall invariably be taken up and completed by the officer-in-charge of the police station or an Assistant-Sub-Inspector at the first opportunity. (3) An officer-in-charge of a station shall also render assistance whenever required to all officers of the Criminal Investigation Department working within his jurisdiction." According to sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 the S.H.O. can depute any subordinate to partly investigate the case. Sub-rule (2) says that "any police officer may be so deputed under this section, but where a police officer under the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector is deputed the investigation shall invariably be taken up and completed by the officer-in-charge of the police station or an Assistant Sub-Inspector."

7. In the case in hand the accused was serving at Police Station Baghdadul Jadeed. He had been arrested in Case F.I.R. No. 193 of 1993, that case was being investigated by Naveed Ikram, S.I./S.H.O. Police Station Baghdadul Jadeed. It was during investigations, of that case, that the accused had been made disclosure and got recovered heroin, opium and other articles from his box lying within the premises of the said police station. Obviously for that, S.H.O. was not supposed to call any police officer from any other police station, even otherwise any police officer above the rank of A.S.I. can arrest, anybody committing any offence and can take into possession anything unlawful, found in possession of any person. If the person so arrested offers to lead to recovery of anything unlawful from any place the police officer can get that recovered and take the same into possession. Naveed Ikram, S.I./S.H.O. had exactly done the same thing in this case. He had taken into possession only, the articles, which the appellant had offered to get recovered. In doing so he was supposed to record the proceedings. The recovery memo prepared by him, the statements of the witnesses recorded by him under section 161, Cr.P.C. and the complaint drafted by him and the same sent for registration of the case to the Police Station Civil Lines resulted from the said proceedings. The remaining investigation was done by the S.H.O. of Police Station Civil Lines and complete challan was also submitted to the Court by him. In the circumstances in my view no illegality viz-a-viz investigation in this case occurred.

8. The contention of the learned counsel that all recovery witnesses in this case were police officials, does not possess weight, for the reason that the investigation was being done of another case in the police station and it was during that investigation, that accused had made disclosure and when the recovery was to be effected from within the premises of the police station, there was no occasion or necessity even to call for any body from outside the police station. Even otherwise, the accused being colleague of the recovery witnesses, it cannot be assumed that they were inimical towards him, in fact, he did not make any allegation in that regard.

9. The argument that since the parcels were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner after 14 days and so no reliance can be placed on the report of the Chemical Examiner as there was possibility of substitution does not possess weight for the reason that the Head Constable who had despatched the parcels to the office of the Chemical Examiner had explained the delay. He had also authenticated, that so long the parcels remained with him nobody had tampered. Even otherwise, it is worth consideration that the said Head Constable was not serving under Naveed Ikram at whose complaint the case had been registered and so he would not have take any extraneous interest in the case. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel does not render help as apart from the fact that circumstances and facts of that case were different, than the case in hand, the other marked difference, is, that the parcel in that case had been sent after one month.

10. The plea taken by the appellant that Naveed Ikram, S.I./S.H.O. had become inimical against him as he had objected to the release of some Mithu Qasai after charging bribe is neither here nor there, because neither any P.W. have lend support to this plea nor had he produced any evidence in defence to prove that.

11. The appellant was a serving constable and was posted at the Police Station Baghdad-ul-Jadeed. The S.H.O. and the other police official posted at the police station could not have gone to the extent of fabricating a false case against him. Although it is not on the record but it can be safely assumed that the recovery of narcotic at the instance of a police official from within the premises of the police station must not have gone unnoticed by the superior police officers i.e. circle officer or even Superintendent of Police of the District. That being so, they would not have allowed the Sub-Inspector to commit such an excess.

12. For all the reasons noted above there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. Vide Notification in the Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary) dated Monday April, 1996 whipping has been abolished excepting the cases of Hadd, the sentence of infliction of two stripes is, therefore, deleted. N.H.Q./1133/FSC Appeal dismissed.