NAZIR AHMED Versus STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a police constable. The petitioner did not dispute the occurrence of the incident but contended that the deceased constable lacked a warrant for his arrest, thereby granting the petitioner a legal right to resist what he claimed was wrongful custody. The core legal question was whether the police officer’s attempt to arrest the petitioner without a warrant was lawful under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically regarding the interplay between Sections 54 and 56. The Supreme Court held that the arrest was lawful, as the officer acted within his authority under Section 54, which permits arrests without a warrant for persons concerned in cognizable offences or against whom credible information exists. The Court clarified that Section 56, which governs arrests by subordinates pursuant to a written order, does not control or limit the independent power of arrest granted under Section 54. Consequently, the petitioner’s claim of wrongful custody was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.
- Does Section 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 control or limit the power of arrest granted under Section 54?
- Under what circumstances may a police officer arrest a person without a warrant under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of a specific arrest warrant render a police officer's attempt to arrest a person for a cognizable offence 'wrongful custody'?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 56, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J. -The petitioner has been convicted under section 302, P. P. C. and sentenced to death for the murder. of Muhammad Sarwar, Foot Constable, on the 8th October 1966, at 6-30 p.m. in Ram Bazar, Baghbanpura.
2. As the assault took place in full public view and the com plicity of the petitioner was abundantly proved by a number of eye-witnesses the learned counsel did not dispute the incident, but raised the legal issue that inasmuch as the deceased did not have a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner, the latter had the right to free himself from his wrongful custody. The application of section 302, P. P. C. was on this premises disputed.
3. The petitioner was involved in two criminal cases at the time of the occurrence. Warrants for his arrest were received in the Police Station, Baghbanpura, to which the deceased was attached and were returned to this Court concerned after futile efforts to find out his whereabouts. It so happened that the deceased accompanied by Channan Din (P. W. 18), a fellow constable, were on duty to keep a check on the bad characters of the area on the afternoon of the 8th October 1966. While patrolling Ram Bazar in plain clothes when they saw the petitioner in the company of another person and directed him to accompany them to the Police Station. On the way the petitioner whipped out a knife and caused repeated injuries with it to the deceased who fell on the street and died on the spot instantaneously.
4. Under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Police Officer may arrest any person without a warrant who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable t complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of .his having been s concerned. As mentioned above, two warrants for the arrest o the petitioner were received in the Police Station, Baghbanpura, which remained unnerved as the petitioner was not traceable. In view of this information it was within the authority of the deceas ed to arrest the petitioner. Indeed it was a duty under the Police Act. It was maintained by the learned counsel that section 54 was controlled by the provisions of section 56 which lays down the procedure when police officer deputes a subordinate to arrest without a warrant. The section applies when the S.H.Q. or any police officer making an investigation under Chapter XIV requires any officer subordinate to him to arrest without a warrant. He shall deliver to the subordinate officer an order in writing specifying the person to be arrested and the offence or the other cause for which the arrest is made. The officer making the arrest is required to notify to the person to be arrested the substance of the order and if so required shall show him the order.
5. The scope of sections 54 and 56 is, as seen, wholly different. While the authority to arrest under section 54 is limited to they conditions laid down in clauses first to ninthly, the power to arrest under section 56 without warrant is subject to the require ment only of a written order by a Senior Police Officer specifying 8 the offence or other cause for which arrest is to be made. A against these provisions section 54(i) clause first reproduced above requires that the person to be arrested is concerned in an cognizable offence or against whom s. reasonable complaint ha been made or credible information has been received etc. etc.
6. The contention raised by the learned counsel that the petitioner had the right to free himself from the wrongful custody of the deceased has thus no substance in law. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7. Leave refused.