SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and others
This criminal revision petition is directed against the observations and directions of the Additional Sessions Judge made while deciding a pre-arrest bail application, wherein the judge directed departmental action and registration of a case against the investigating officer for concluding the investigation on a special oath on the Holy Quran. The core legal question is whether an Additional Sessions Judge, while hearing a bail petition, has the authority to direct departmental action and registration of a criminal case against an investigating officer for conducting a defective investigation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it is the duty of the court to point out illegalities in the investigation and that the court possesses inherent powers under the statutes to direct appropriate action against delinquent investigating officers. The key principle laid down is that criminal courts examining bail matters are competent to take notice of flawed investigative practices, such as deciding matters on special oaths, and to order disciplinary or legal proceedings against responsible police officials.
- Can an Additional Sessions Judge direct departmental action against an investigating officer while deciding a bail application?
- Is it lawful for an investigating officer to conclude a criminal investigation on a special oath on the Holy Quran?
- Does a court hearing a bail matter possess the inherent power to point out illegalities in police investigations?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 155(C), Police Order 2002
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, J.--- Brief facts in order to dispose of this Criminal Revision are that while disposing of pre-arrest bail application moved by Muhammad Shakeel in case F.I.R. No, 610 dated 28-9-2010 under sections 452, 427, 342, 337-A(i), P.P.C, registered at Police Station Saddar Barooni Rawalpindi, learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 6 of the order observed that:-- "Secondly, I felt necessary to bring on record the fact about the conduct of Sardar Ahmad, A.S.-I. who concluded the investigation on Special Oath on Holy Quran against the accused of F.I.R nominated by Shakeel Ahmad into his first information report which is found not warranted in the eyes of law. Such practice is always condemned by all four comes of law to conclude the investigation on special oath which is not meant for such purpose. Moreover, the superior court time and again announced that no criminal case shall decide on special oath, except on merit of the investigation of the case. It is also pertinent to mention here that the I.O. did not conclude his investigation regarding the injuries sustained to Khurram Mehmood, Rizwan the injured of F.I.R, therefore, the matter is hereby sent to the CPO Rawalpindi against Sardar Ahmad. S.I. who is found for responsible of defective investigation in this case as well for negligence of departmental action as well registration of case under Article 155(C) of Police Order, 2002. File be consigned to record room after its necessary completion."
Feeling aggrieved the I.O/present petitioner Sardar Muhammad A.S.-I. has preferred this criminal revision.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that while acting as Additional Sessions Judge and exercising the powers under sections 497 and 498 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 the learned ASJ must have to confine himself within the four corners of the powers provided under the above mentioned provisions of law but in this case he has travelled beyond the scope provided under sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. for the grant of bail as he was not exercising the powers as Ex-officio Justice of Peace under sections 22-A and B, Cr .P .C; that while issuing the direction he committed an illegality thus the order is liable to be set aside/quashed. In order to further substantiate his arguments he has relied on PLD 2005 Lahore 740 (Khizar Hayyat etc. v. I.G. Punjab Police etc.).
Prayed that the direction issued by the learned ASJ for registration of case as well as initiation of departmental action under Article 155-C of Police Order, 2002 be declared as illegal and same be quashed while allowing this petition.
3. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. assisted by learned counsel for respondent No, 3 has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that as during investigation the I.O. i,e, the present petitioner Sardar Muhammad A.S.-I. decided the matter on the basis of Oath and thus committed an illegality, therefore, the learned ASJ has rightly directed for initiation of action to CPO, Rawalpindi. Prayed that this petition be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
5. Primarily it is the duty of the Court to see while disposing of any criminal matter, if investigation in the case was conducted properly and in accordance with law and if any illegality is found, the court must have to point out the same as these powers are always inherent provided under the Statutes in which proceedings are being conducted. Herein this case, the learned ASJ while disposing of the bail application when felt that investigation was not conducted in accordance with law as pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No, 3 i,e, in violation of the law laid down in PLD 1990 SC 83 (Bashiran Bibi v. Nisar Ahmad), therefore, he rightly directed to CPO for initiation of action in accordance with law.. No illegality was committed, therefore, this petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.