1999 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Ayyub Chaudhary with Muhammad Asghar Khan for Petitioner. M. Kabir Malik, A.A.-G. for the State. Pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 16-7-1998, the bailiff raided Police Post Taret and found that Jaffar Abbas detenu was present over there in hand-cuffs. It was stated to him that the detenu had been apprehended in a case under section 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) vide F.I.R. No.264 of the same date; that his arrest has been shown in daily diary at Serial No.

10. The bailiff produced the detenu in this Court on 17-7-1998 alongwith a report that he was not treated properly and was shown some resistance on the part of Police Officer who was present over there. Taking the aforesaid circumstances into consideration I recorded the statements of Jaffar Abbas and Muhammad Yaqub, A.S.-I., Police Post Taret who had apprehended the detenu and the statement of Rashid Masih son of Nama Masih Christian by caste. Jaffar Abbas stated that he was taken into custody on 15th July, 1998 when he was accompanying his brother Wajid Abbas and one relative in a Taxi-Car No.JM-3737; that the aforesaid taxi-car was intercepted near Bara-Koh; that he was only the person who was taken into custody; that an amount of Rs.3,035 was taken from his pocket while a bag belonging to his brother was also taken into custody; that this bag contained about 70,000 rupees which were taken by Muhammad Yaqub, A.S.-I. and this money was being taken to be paid to the owner of taxi-car from whom his brother has purchased it. Muhammad Yaqub, A.S.-I., Police Post Taret was also examined. He stated that on 16-7-1998, the police party, headed by him intercepted the Vehicle No.JM-3737; that there were two persons namely Jaffar Abbas and Ibrar in the said vehicle; that both were taken into custody; that he recovered one .8 mm rifle with a magazine from detenu while 10 cartridges were recovered from his co-accused Ibrar; that these recovery operations were witnessed by two other persons namely Altaf and Aftab and another person whose name was not known to him. He stated that he had taken a black bag into custody which contained a white Chadar, a woollen Chadar, one Sweater and Registration Book of that vehicle. He further stated that there was one I.D. Card of Jafar Abbas; that this bag did not contain any money at all. In cross-examination, he stated that the detenu belonged to a family of notorious criminals against whom there were number of cases pending investigation. Statement of Rashid Masih was recorded on 20-7-1998. He stated that he was working as a sweeper in M.N.A. Hostel; that he had been living there for more than 23 years; that he was dealing in business of sale and purchase of cars; that he had sold Car No.JM-3737 to Wajid Abbas who got the sale transaction made in his brother's name; that he had sold the aforesaid vehicle in the sum of Rs. 1,30,000; that he received Rs. 40,000 as advance and received Rs. 7,500 in instalments; that Rs. 82,500 were the balance; that it was agreed between the parties that if the payment was made on or before 20-7-1998, he will give concession of Rs. 12,500 and only Rs. 70,000 were to be payable; that he had purchased the said vehicle from Mr. Chatha and that the registration was still in the name of old owner; that he was to get the registration record completed after the receipt of Rs. 70,000.

2. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the proceedings of 16th July, 1998 were fake in nature; that petitioner had been taken into custody actually on 15-7-1998 and that about Rs. 70,000 had been pocketed by Police Officer who had arrested him; that the detenu had committed no offence and was driving the vehicle alongwith his brother; that there was a licence of his rifle. On the strength of the above arguments, it was submitted that the case be registered against the delinquent Police Officer and the detenu be set at liberty. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Yar v. TehsildariAssistant Collector, Pakpattan 1991 PCr.LJ 363, Khan Muhammad v. S.H.O. Police Station Phoolnagar 1995 SCMR 1283, Safia Bibi v. Superintendent Camp Jail, Lahore 1996 PCr.LJ 1455 and Naseer Ahmad v. S.H.O. Police Station Tarindah Muhammad Pannah 1998 PCr.LJ 196.

3. Learned A.A.-G., on the contrary, firmly submitted that the registration of the F.I.R. was a complete answer to the plea of illegal detention raised in the habeas corpus petition. On this ground, it was canvassed that the Police Officers be given opportunity to investigate the case and bring it to its logical conclusion. He assured that the investigation will be conducted fairly, properly and without any malice. 3-A. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at considerable length, perused the statements of witnesses named above very carefully and attended to their competing contentions with due attention. Clearly, the version of the petitioner and that of Police is wholly opposed to each other. As already noted, the case of the petitioner is that detenu had been taken into custody on 15-7-1998; that a bag was taken into possession by the police; that the police had taken Rs. 70,000 from the said bag; that proceedings were malicious in nature. On the contrary, the case of the police is that the detenu belongs to family of tortuous record; that he was carrying as 8 mm rifle without licence and that he had not given any account for retaining that rifle: that the cartridges were recovered from his co-accused. It is true that the case registered at Police Station is an effective answer to the plea of illegal detention yet it is not sufficient to give Police Authorities to trample all the provisions of law and usurp the liberties of citizens. The statement of Rashid Masih exude confidence. Taking the aforesaid circumstances into consideration, I am inclined to dispose of this petition within the frame work of rule laid down in Ghulam Shahbaz v. S.H.O., Police Station Kahror Pacca PLD 1991 Lah. 241.

4. It is hardly necessary to reiterate that our cherished State was created at the altar of colossal sacrifice of human lives and material resources under the dynamic leadership of Quaid-e-Azam. Our State is Federal Islamic Republic and our rule of governance do not recognize rule by dynasties, any class or aristocracy. Our governance is by laws which have inspiration from the golden principles of Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. In this Scheme of rule the functionaries of State are repository of People's power as trustee. The Police Department is assigned the task of preservation of public order/prevention/detention and punishment of criminals. Indeed, this Department is of fundamental importance invested with coercive powers of State. The police force is disciplined organisation with a centralised structure. It comprises of superior and subordinate heirarcy. At the apex is the Inspector-General of Police in a Province which is even armed with Magisterial powers and the District Magistrate is vested with powers of general control and direction of police within its District. Section 29 of the Police Act postulates penalties for negligence of duties on the part of police officials. Shortly stated, it is the statutory duty of the superior Police Officers to see that subordinate officers do not transgress their limits of authority. The senior Police Officers have been given powers to take departmental as well as criminal actions against the delinquent officers. It is a high time that this institution be insulated from extraneous vicious influences and be modelled on transparent, efficient and responsible lines to deliver goods to the Society. From the aforenarrated version of petitioner, it is quite clear that the version of the petitioner contains serious allegations regarding acts of malfeasance and misfeasance committed by the concerned investigator. Under section 491, Cr.P.C., it is neither proper nor possible for this Court to examine and enquire into such allegations. However, the matter cannot be left to the whims of the Investigating Agencies. Seen in this background, I am inclined to exercise my powers under Para.22 of the Letter Patent. Accordingly, I direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi to conduct the preliminary investigation in respect of allegations levelled by the petitioner and complete the same within 20 days of the receipt of this order. He, 1 on the basis of his report, shall initiate penal as well as departmental actions i against the delinquent Police Officer if so found. He shall also send a report of? his preliminary investigation and the resultant actions taken in this behalf to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. The Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Bench shall deliver the copy of this order alongwith copy of the criminal miscellaneous, the statements of Jaffar Abbas/detenu, Rashid Masih, Muhammad Yaqub, A.S.-I. and the report of the bailiff to the S.S.P., Rawalpindi on 22-7-1998. Before parting with this order, it is made very clear that investigation will be conducted fairly and within the parameters of law and in consonance with the observation of this order: The S.S.P. will be well within his right to see that if investigation is changed and is entrusted to any other Officer of high integrity. The detenu who has been arrested in case, may- seek post-arrest bail, if so advised, from the Court of competent jurisdiction. N.H.Q./W-33/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.