SAEED AHMAD KHAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE vs THE STATE

1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.- Through the instant criminal appeal, Saeed Ahmad Khan, by leave of the Court, has challenged the order, dated 5-11-1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, wherein certain observations detrimental to his future career have been made.

2. ' The background of the case leading to the instant appeal is that Abdul Majid accused in F.I.R.

3. No,37, dated 6-2-1990, applied for bail in the High Court under sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. And during the course of hearing the learned Judge, seized of the matter, summoned the appellant and examined him on oath. Copies of the questions/answers are Annexure 'B'. The learned Judge made the following observations against the appellant:-- "This fact alone is sufficient to discard his investigation. The learned counsel for the respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous No,3483/B of 1990 submitted that even the so-called packets/containers in which the alleged drug was placed contain only earth and not drug. If this is true then it means that the Investigating Officer has taken all precautions that no damage is done to the accused. The fact that informant named Iftikhar was indulging in illegal activities and premises belong to him were sufficient in itself to make him the principal accused but the D.S.P. Who investigated the matter, for reasons best known to him, did not even interrogate him. Therefore, D.S.P. Is liable to be proceeded for misconduct, inefficiency and may reasonably be considered corrupt. The D.I.-G.

4. Lahore is directed to get disciplinary proceedings initiated against D.S.P. The proceedings to be finalised within two months and report as to the action taken against the said D.S.P. Is to be submitted to the Registrar of this Court immediately after the conclusion of departmental proceedings."

5. ' The appellant has questioned the power and jurisdiction of the learned Judge of the High Court to make such observations particularly declaring him . Inefficient and reasonably considered to be corrupt.

6. We have heard Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqui, Advocate, for the appellant and have perused the record of the case. The learned Judge who was seized of A the bail matter had the jurisdiction to call the appellant and question him about the merits of the case. However, we feel that the observation 'therefore, D.S.P. Is liable to be proceeded for misconduct, inefficiency and may reasonably be considered corrupt' directing the D.I.-G. Lahore to initiate 8 disciplinary proceedings against him to be finalised within two months with a I compliance report, should have been avoided and instead the department could be advised for proper legal action against him.

7. ' The instant appeal is disposed of with diluting the detrimental character of the above observations of the High Court.