MAQBOOL AHMAD Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE ETC.

ORDER

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑ In this case the appellant, ex Foot Constable, while posted at the District Police Lines, Lahore, on 18 th August, 1969, was deputed to escort Abdul Rashid son, of Siraj Din and Feroze Din son of Mohd. Din‑‑two under trial prisoners in the Court of Mr. M. Iqbal Minhas, Magistrate Section 30, Kasur. The aforesaid undertrial were confined in the Lahore District Jail wherefrom they were entrusted to the custody of the appellant and his colleague Irshad Ahmad in the morning of 18th August, 1969. They took the prisoners to Kasur and on their way back from Court in the bus, when they reached near a place known as Haji De Khui about 4 miles from Lahore General Hospital, one of the prisoners Abdul Rashid complained of acute stomach pain. The appellant got the bus stopped and alighted down from the same along with two prisoners. The other colleague of the appellant went to look for the doctor and the appellant took both the accused to house of Abdul Rashid which happened to be nearby. At about 5 p. m. in the evening and after about an hour of their arrival both the undertrials escaped. The appellant continued futile search for them for three days and eventually on 21‑8‑1979 F. I. R. No. 164 under section 223/224, P. P. C. was got registered at Police Station, Kahna. A case under section 245, P. P. C. was initiated against the appellant but he was acquitted on 25‑3‑1976 by Mr. Muhammad Muzaffar Farid, M. I. C., Lahore as the prosecution witnesses were won over and actually resiled in the Court.

2. In this background the appellant was charge‑sheeted for misconduct by S. P. Hqr. on 7‑9‑1977. The appellant replied to the charge‑sheet that he was acquitted by the criminal Court on merits as the evidence did not disclose any offence on his part. In fact the defence of the appellant was that he got down the accused from the bus in emergency but were snatched away by four relatives/friends of the accused by force. Thus he was not at fault. The D. S. P. Headquarters, in the preliminary probe, also exonerated the appellant. However, in the departmental enquiry the appellant was found guilty. The S. P. Hqr. vide order dated 5‑10‑1978 dismissed the appellant from service holding that there was no justification for the appellant to stop and alight from bus at Haji Di Khui which was a place near the house of the escapes prisoners. He also observed that since Lahore General Hospital was only four miles away, there could be no occasion to stop the bus at the aforesaid place where obviously there was no medical facility available. Thus the story put forth was not trustworthy. He also observed that the narrative of the appellant of forcible removal of the escapees from his custody was based on hearsay and, therefore, un acceptable. An appeal before the D. I.-G. against the above order was rejected on 5‑11‑1978 holding that the order of the S. P. was well‑grounded. In revision, the A. I.‑G. Police vide order dated 20‑1‑1979 also came to the conclusion that the defence version was a concoction and the allegations of misconduct were proved. In this appeal filed on 1‑7‑1979 the appellant reiterated his defence that the accused were taken away from his custody by force by the supporters of the prisoners and that he got down at a place near Haji Di Khui in a grave emergency and thus he was not at fault.

3. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, we find that this appeal has little merit. In the first instance we are in agreement with the departmental authorities that the appellant's conduct to get down at a place near the Haji Di Khui was wholly unplausible. Evidently there was no medical facility available nor there could be any chance of relief to the prisoners. It is also not disputed that the Lahore General Hospital was only four miles away which could hardly have taken another 10 minutes to reach. There was no suggestion that the prisoners were in serious danger to their life during the span. Moreover the conduct of the appellant for not reporting the incident to the police for three days also militates against his bona fide. If the defence as put forward by the appellant was correct, we cannot find any good reasons for not reporting the incident with due haste to the authorities. As regards the acquittal of the appellant in criminal cases, we find that primarily the trial Court was of the view that the prosecution was defective due to lack of sanction for prosecu tion. After this finding the other findings of the Court had to be treated as obiter. We are thus of the view that the appellant was let off due to legal defect in the criminal proceedings. Even otherwise there is some farce in the contention of the Department that the prosecution witnesses had been won over. As regard the punishment, we find that rule 16.37 or the Punjab Police Rules laid down that the normal punishment in such cases was dismissal. The appellant has produced nothing to justify departure from the normal rules. We, therefore, hold that the punishment is in accordance with law.

Consequently the appeal fails and is, therefore, rejected.

Appeal dismissed