POLICE ORDER & POLICE RULES POLICE ORDER 2007 MLD 428.Munir Hussain V/S The State (Lahore) Art.155 & 35. FIR registered on complaint of Session Judge. Offence punishable with three years imprisonment. Absence of mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of police not to debar accused from concession of bail. FIR was registered against accused/petitioner (Sub Inspector of police) under the order of complainant Sessions Judge as the former failed to arrest an accused involved in a case. Acused contended that offence under Art.155 of Police Order 2002 was not attracted to the facts of case, that offence with which accused was charged did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497 and that jurisdiction of complainant to pass order for registration of case had been challenged under Art.35 of Police Order 2002 according to which District Nazim was competent to issue such like direction against accused/petitioner. Validity - Offence under Art.155 of Police Order 2002 was punishable with three years. Petitioner/accused being a government servant was not likely to abscond and case required further inquiry as to whether he deliberately failed to arrest said accused or not. Petitioner/accused succeeded to make out his case for pre-arrest bail and absence of mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of police was not to debar him from concession of bail. BBA GRANTED. 2006 PCrLJ 1998. Abdur Razzaq V/S The State & Others (Lahore) Art.18(6) S.16 Zina Ord. Constitutional petition. Transfer of investigation. Investigation of a case could be transferred from one Investigating Officer to another by Investigation Board, head by an officer not below the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and two Superintendents of Police, one being Incharge of concerned district. Incharge of investigation bof the district had been placed in the Board as its member and had got no other status or power so as to withdraw investigation of a case himself lonely and solely. Board could approve such change of investigation. No other provision existed granting power to Incharge of Investigation of the district to withdraw any case from any Investigating Officer and to conduct investigation himself. If any party to the case desired any transfer of investigation, it could move Investigation Board in accordance with provision of Act 18(6) of Police Order 2002. PLD 2006 Lahore 95. Muhammad Ali Hussain V/S District Police Officer & Others Art.18(6)Police Order 2002, Art.199 Constitution. Interference with the process of investigation. Validity. Assistant Sub-Inspector of police, after conducting investigation in the registered FIR had declared the accused innocent. Sub-Inspector and DSP in successive investigations also found the accused innocent and prepared the cancellation report, against which the District Police Officer, on the application of the complainant, entrusted the investigation of the case to Inspector Investigation. Application filed by the accused against the said transfer of investigation had been dismissed by the Sessions Judge acting as Justice of Peace. Constitutional petition assailing said order was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Contention of the Additional Advocate General that subsequent to the first investigation of the ASI other mentioned officials were asked for verification of the investigation and not to investigate the case, was nsot correct, because had the same been true, the said officials would not have substituted or given their finding or conclusion. Scope of verification was limited. Verification of record is permissible but in the guise of verification the verification officer could not reinvestigate and substitute opinion of the previous officer with his own opinion. All proceedings subsequent to the first investigation conducted by the ASI were consequently declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the direction to the SHO and the Investigating Officer to submsit the final report in the light of the conclusion of the first investigation conducted by the said ASI. However, if any party dere-investigation, it could approach the concerned Authorities as contemplated under Art.18(6) of the Police Order, 2002. (2) Investigation --- Verification of --- Scope --- Verification of investigation conducted by an Investigating Officer by some other officer is confined to verification of the record of investigation and in the guise of verification the verification officer cannot re-investigate the case and cannot substitute opinion of the previous officer with his own opinion. REVIEW APPLICATION ALLOWED. 2007 PCrLJ 1170.Alam Sher V/S Additional Inspector General of Police (Lahore) Art.18(6). Police Order, S.302/324 PPC. Quashing of order. Petitioner had sought quashing of order passed by DSP Range Crimes changing investigation of case under S.302 & 324 PPC and handing over same to other Inspectors. Once in the light of order passed by Additional I.G. Police, the investigation was taken up by the Incharge Regional Investigation Branch, DSP, could not further direct, change of investigation to other Inspectors, without obtaining appropriate orders from Inspector General of Police (Provincial Police Officer) within the meaning of proviso Second to Art.18(6) of the Police Order, 2002. Impugned order passed by DSP entrusting the investigation of the case to other inspectors, could not be considered as valid and lawful order. IMPUGNED ORDER SET-ASIDE. 2008 MLD 517. Sufi Sher Muhammad V/S The State & 4 Others (Lahore) Art.18 Police Order 2002. S.551 CrPC. Transfer of investigation. Additional Inspector General Police, Investigation Branch, had not transferred the investigation in accordance with provisions of sub-Article (5) and (6) of Article 18 of Police Order. Said official while submitting his report and parawise comments had mentioned that investigation held by S.P.(Investigation) was illegal and was without legal sanctity of law and investigation held by S.P.(Investigation) was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. Held, challan having already been submitted in the court, no further investigation could be conducted. 2008 MLD 528. Ghulam Muhammad V/S Additional Inspector General of Police (Lahore) Art.18(6) Police Order 2002. Counsel for the petitioners had sought transfer of investigation, recommendation of which was refused by the Board as contemplated under Article 18(6) of Police Order. To meet such situation where police were not agreeable with the point of view of the complainant or police were non-cooperative, filing a complaint was an adequate and appropriate remedy. During the proceedings of a private complaint, the court had power to order for investigation, recovery etc. Petitioner, in circumstances could opt to file a private complaint which would be decided strictly in accordance with PLD 2008 Lahore 488. Javed Iqbal V/S Additional Inspector General of Police Lahore. Art.18(6). Transfer of investigation----Power of review----Scope----On the application of complainant Standing Board recommended the case for first change of investigation but Additional Inspector General of Police did not agree with the recommendation and refused to first change the investigation. On second application of complainant for first change of investigation, the Standing Board did not recommend the case for change of investigation but the AIG of Police once again did not agree with the recommendation and after reviewing his earlier order changed the investigation----Validity----AIG of Police, though, under Art.18(6) of Police Order 2002, was bound to have due deliberations and recommendations by a Board constituted in terms of the said provision, but after considering pros and cons of the case, he could disagree with the recommendation, however, AIG of had no power to review his earlier order. High Court noted it with great concern that if such practice was allowed, no finality would be attached to the orders of AIG and the end to be achieved by finality i.e. minimization of wastage of time in the manner of transfer of investigations, would be frustrated. Even under the provisions of Police Order 2002, AIG of Police had no power to review his earlier order. Right of review was substantive right and was always the creation of relevant statute on the subject. Courts were not bound to agree to the opinion of police, therefore, accused would not be entitled to any relief on the basis of such opinion of police. After recording statement of complainant, accused, who were found innocent by police, had already been summoned to face the trial. Fate of the case would depend upon the evidence collected during trial. Order passed by AIG of police for changing investigation against accused was declared to be illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction and the same was quashed. PETITION ALLOWED. 2007 PCrLJ 384. Mubashar Ahmed V/S SHO Police Station Saddar (Lahore) Art.73 & 152. S.109/34 PPC. Quasing of FIR – Arguments of counsel for petitioner was that inquiry under Art.152 of Police Order, 2002, could be held by Police Complaint Authority, which was provided under Art.73 of Police Order, 2002. Report prepared by Additional Advocate General, had shown that matter was never referred to the Police Complaint Authority, but was directly entertained by DIG and thereafter, it trickled down sto SHO concerned. Additional Advocate General, had conceded to the point of counsel for petitioner that apparently flaw was obvious in the proceedings taken by respondents in view of provisions of Art. 152 to be read with Art.73 of Police Order 2002. FIR QUASHED. 2006 MLD 855.Masood Ahmad Javed V/S The State (Lahore) Art.155 & 156 Police Order. S.21-A & 21-B CrPC. Art.199 Constitution. Registration of criminal case. Petitioner being a police officer, conducted proceedings in a case entrusted to him and he, after concluding same, declared one of the accused in that case to be innocent. On application filed by complainant in that case against petitioner, an enquiry was conducted, in which it was found that petitioner ante-dated his report and that witnesses, who had never supported accused party, were stated to have done so. Upon report of said inquiry report, Inspector General of police had placed petitioner under suspension. One of said witnesses filed an application U/S 21-A & 21-B CrPC for registration of case against petitioner U/A 155 and 156 of Police Order. Said application was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge who directed SHO to register a case against petitioner U/A. 155/156. Said order had been impugned in constitutional petition. Since prosecution had yet to commence in a competent court and the direction being only to register a case, case had rightly been ordered to be registered by Justice of Peace. Offence in question being punishable with three years imprisonment and fine, same was cognizable within the meaning of Second Schedule in CrPC. No bar was spelt out in Police Order 2000 against an investigation to be conducted in the matter. Matter was at investigation stage and proper stage for consideration of implication of Art.155(2) of Police Order 2002 would be when the matter was reported to the court for commencement of prosecution. PET. DISMISSED. 2007 MLD 494.Muhammad Javed V/S The State (Lahore) Art.155 (c ). S.337-A(iii), 337-H(ii)/337-L(ii)/148/149 PPC. Non-entering complaint in relevant register. On the last date of hearing it transpired that occurrence had, in fact, been reported to SHO concerned by means of written complaint, but complaint was neither entered in the relevant Register under S.154 CrPC nor was considered as a report for non-cognizable offence as envisaged in S.155 CrPC. Effect - Case was registered on a fresh complaint in which prosecution version had been slightly imprvoed. Had the case been registered on the basis of first complaint, prosecution case would not have been prejudiced in any manner. SHO concerned appeared to have willfully breached or neglected mandatory provisions of law punishable under Art.155 (c ) of the Police Order 2002. SHO had shifted the responsibility on his subordinate, SHO under the law was responsible for the irregularities and illegalities committed by his subordinate. Mere fact that he had marked complaint to his subordinate, would not absolve him from his responsibilities. Registration of case was delayed either for extraneous consideration or due to lack of supervision of SHO. Competent authority was directed to initiate departmental action against the SHO in accordance with law within specified period. 2008 YLR 298. Wajeeh Ul Hassan Shah V/S Sessions Judge Sheikhupura (Lahore) Art. 155 Police Order 2002. S.22-A & 22-B CrPC. Petition had challenged orders of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace whereby registration of criminal case against petitioner was passed. Contention of petitioner was that orders of Justice of Peace were contrary to the provisions of Art.155(2) of the Police Order 2002 --- Validity ---- Contention was repelled as in the present case provisions of Police Order were not attracted because petityion filed under S.22-A and 22-B CrPC had disclosed commission of cognizable offence punishable under PPC whereas Art.155(2) of Police Order was restricted in its apaplication to cases calling for prosecution in terms of Art.155(1) of the Order. Word “prosecution” used in Art.155(2) of Police Order implied institution and continuation of criminal proceedings after a formal charge had been framed and mere registration of FIR could not be construed as “prosecution” in the context of Art.155(2) of Police Order 2002. Ex-Iofficio Justice of Peace, in circumstances, had no option except to order registration of a criminal case, if commission of a cognizable offence was made out from the contents of the petition as was in the case. Impugned orders were in consonance with law and no illegality had been committed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace. NLR 2008 CrLJ 308. Muhammad Yasin V/S Station House Officer (Lahore) Art.18(6) Re-investigation conducted by new investigating officer posted in place of first investigating officer who had already conducted the investigation of the case would not be transfer of investigation in violation of Art.uch re-investigation upheld as unquestionable and writ petition challenging such re-investigation with plea that it was conducted in violation of Art. 18(6) dismissed by High Court. PLD 2008 Lahore 215. Mazhar Siddique Cheema V/S District Police Officer. S.440, 148 & 149 PPC. Art.18(6) Police order 2002. Additional I.G. of Police directed the head of investigation to ensure investigation on merits under his close supervision and his office never issued any order for change of investigation in the case. Law officer had not denied that S.P. (Investigation) instead of complying with direction of Additional I.G. Police had, in fact, conducted the investigation in the case and after associating the parties with the investigation proceedings, had incorporated zimini--- Validity----Entire exercise undertaken by Superintendent of Police (nvestigation) in conducting reinvestigation of the case, was illegal and void ab initio being contrary to the provisions of Art. 18(6) of Police Order, 2002. Record conclusively proved that S.P. (Investigation) had undertaken an exercise which was not warranted under the law as same had not been entrusted to him in accordance therewith. PLD 2008 Lahore 326.Mst. Riffat Shaheen V/S District Public Safety Commission Art.44(k) & (m)(ii)(iii) of Police Order 2002. S.337-F(v)/452/420/406/506/34 PPC. Powers of District Public Safety Commission---Scope---During investigation of the case registered against them accused made an application under Article 44(i)(k) to the District Public Safety Commission calling in question the correctness of allegations set up in the FIR. Fact Finding Commission on having reached the conclusion that the FIR was based on false information and the machinery lf law had been moved against the accused dishonestly, directed the Investigating Agency to cancel the case vide impugned order. Provisions of Cl.(m)(ii)(iii) of Art.44 of Police Order, relied upon by the accused, provided that District Public Safety Commission, after having received the fact-finding inquiry report, was required to forward the same to the Head of District Police with a direction to take legal action against the delinquent police officer and if no action was taken as proposed, then the matter was to be reported to the Provincial Government through the Provincial Public Safety and Police Complaints Commission for action under the appropriate law. Police Order, 2002, or the Code of Criminal Procedure, or any other law touching the subject to investigation of criminal cases, nowhere authorized or empowered the District Public Safety Commission to direct the Investigating Agency to cancel the case. Commission had assumed the role of Investigating Officer rather encroached upon the functions of the Investigator, DSPO and the Head of investigation. Commission had no authority to direct the Investigating Agency to cancel a criminal case under investigation. No forum had been provided under the Police Order 2002 to challenge the order of the Commission and the complainant had no other appropriate, alternate and efficacious remedy except the constitutional petition to challenge the same. Commission had passed the impugned order beyond its sphere allotted by law and it was a fit case for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in order to keep the functionaries of the Government with their limited scope. Constitutional petition was consequently accepted with the direction to Investigating Agency to conclude the investigation on facts in accordance with law without being influenced by the impugned order. 2009 PCrLJ 830. Ashiq Ali V/S Deputy Inspector General of Police (Lahore) Art.155-C, 156, 155(2), 171 & 172 Police Order 2002. S.156(2) CrPC. Art.199 Constitution. Quashing of FIRs. During pendency of a murder case in Sessions Court, DSP (Legal) on some query on the administration side gave an opinion that Police Officers (Petitioners) had not conducted investigation in the said case honestly, whereupon the impugned FIRs had been registered against them. DSP (legal) could not produce in High Court any material on which his opinion was based, nor he was sure as to who had sought his opinion. DSP under Art.155(2) of Police Order was not authorized to recommend for registration of the cases against the accused petitioners. Acts of Police Officers done in good faith had been protected under Art.171 & 172 of the Police Order. Parent law of S.156(2) CrPC had also barred to call in question investigation conducted by police officer, in subsequent proceedings, on the ground of his being incompetent to do the same. Prosecution had not challenged the competency of the accused police officers to investigate the case. Police opinion was not binding on the courts. Aggrieved party had the right to move for reinvestigation. Police had not collected any evidence regarding dishonest investigation conducted by the accused. FIRs had been registered only on the opinion of the DSP (Legal) who had no authority in this regard when the matter was already sub-judice before the court, which was fully empowered to recommend to higher authorities in police hierarchy for any action against the Investigating officers on finding any lapse on their part during the trial. One FIR with similar allegation registerd against a police officer had already been cancelled after investigation and the cases against the present accused had no distinct features. Impugned FIRs were based on malice and did not constitute any offence. FIRs QUASHED. PLD 2009 Lahore 585. Saddar Din V/S Deputy Inspector General of Police Art.199 of Constitution. S.156 & 173 CrPC. Art.18(6) Police Order 2002. S.376 PPC. After completion of investigation and submission of challan before trial Court DIG had transferred the investigation and entrusted the same to DSP, vide the impugned order. Under Art.18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, the duly constituted Board was lawfully empowered to recommend for reinvestigation and if the said Board would recommend for re-investigation of the case, then even after the submission of the challan the reinvestigation could not be debarred. Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution, therefore, was not attracted in the case for setting aside the impugned order of reinvestigation. However, it was observed by High Court that trial Court would decide the case on the basis of evidence and would not be bound to agree to the opinion of any police officer. PETITION DISMISSED. POLICE RULES NLR 2008 SD 1. Sardar Malik Jan V/S The State (Abbottabad) Rules 23.8 & 23.9. Opening of history sheet of a citizen by Police without notice to him and without providing opportunity of hearing to him and entry of his name in Surveillance Register without notice to him and without providing opportunity of hearing to him struck down by High Court as being without lawful authority by accepting writ petition filed to challenge opening of history sheet of petitioner. Held: Such opening of history sheet would be void and inoperative qua rights of petitioner. (2) Opening of history sheet against a citizen under rules 23.8 and 23.9, Police Rules 1934 and entry of his name in Surveillance Register is an act which cannot be kept as a guarded secret of Police. The consequences of such action are that the history sheeter becomes known to headman of the village or other prominent person of the locality. It is for this reason that history sheeter is belittled in the eyes of population of locality to which he belongs. The initiation of such action of opening of history sheet would obviously be to the detriment of reputation of person subjected to such exercise. HISTORY SHEET DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL.
Posted on: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 14:12:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015