NAEEM JAFFAR vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE And 2 Other

Through this Constitutional petition Naeem Jafar petitioner who is an accused in a case registered against him and others vide first information report No.628, dated the 13th of October, 1995, registered under section 399/401/402, P.P.C. At the instance of Inspector Iftikhar Ahmad, Station House Officer of Police Station Civil Lines of Rawalpindi at the said Police Station, seeks quashment of the said first information report.

2. Quashment is sought on the ground that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot but was arrested later on and that the ingredients of section 399, P.P.C. Are not made out. In this context learned counsel places reliance upon the following cases:--

(1) Muhammad Suhail v. The State PLD 1994 Lah. 383,

(b) Shaffaqat A.I Mullan alias Juj v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 2395 and (c)Shujaat A.I alias Chan Shah v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 2277.

It is further argued that no recovery has been made from the petitioner.

3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that the petitioner was arrested on the day of the occurrence i.e. The 13th of October, 1995, on information given by the 9 accused who were arrested from the spot. It is further submitted that the challan has been submitted in Court since, the 20th of December, 1995, and the case is now ripe for trial. Learned Assistant Advocate General relies upon the case of A. Habib Ahmed v. M.K.G. Scott Christian and 5 others reported in PLD 1992 SC 353 and submits that it 'is now for the trial Court to record evidence and on the basis of the said evidence either record a conviction or acquit the petitioner.

4. It is settled law since the last half a century that it is the duty of the police to investigate into the commission of offences and thereafter submit a final report to the competent Court. Thereafter, the function of the police comes to an end and the process of Court begins. It is then the duty of the competent Court to appreciate the evidence which is produced before it in order to determine the guilt or innocence of those who have stood trial and on the basis of 'that evidence either record a conviction or acquittal. This is the ratio decidendi of the case of Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad reported in AIR 1945 PC 18. This view has been followed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the following cases:--

(i) M.S. Khawaja v. The State PLD 1965 SC 287,(i) Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan PLD 1067 SC 317,

(iii) Shahnaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Courts of Sindh and Baluchistan PLD 1971 SC 677; and

(iv) Badaruddin v. Mehr Ahmad Raza, Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang and others PLD 1993 SC 399.

5. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is meant to prevent an abuse of the process of Court. It is not meant to circumvent and defeat the procedure laid down by the law and to be followed by the Courts.

Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan bestows a Constitutional jurisdiction upon the High Courts. Before exercising this extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction the High Court must be satisfied that there is no other adequate remedy provided by law. The Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is not meant to supersede and render redundant alternate remedies already provided by law. The Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is not meant as an alternate jurisdiction. The Code of Criminal Procedure apart from laying down the procedure to be followed by Courts has now by way of section 249-A empowered all Magistrates and by way of section 265-K empowered all the Sessions Courts to acquit an accused person at any stage of the trial when it is satisfied that no case is made out against the accused person and that continuing with the trial amount to a mock trial.

6. Resultantly, there is no merit in this Constitutional petition which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.