KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others

ORDER

' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---The petitioner through this petition, under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 seeks implementation of the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No,446 of 1995, decided on .10-10-1995 rendered in the case of Khushi Muhammad-Petitioner v, Rab Nawaz and 3 others Respondents (1996 SCM R 172), whereby this Court cancelled the bail granted to Rab Nawaz respondent No,5 herein by order of the learned Judge in Chamber, dated 3-8-1995 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2494-R of 1995. Non-bailable warrant was also directed to be issued for the arrest of Rab Nawaz respondent No,5 herein. The accused was also denied benefit of the 3rd proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In that, admittedly he had escaped from the custody and was re-arrested more than 1-1/2 years afterwards.

2. Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that Rab Nawaz respondent had become terror for the petitioner's family and their lives were in danger but the local administration was not taking any interest for his arrest despite the issuance of non- bailable warrants by this Court. It is further alleged that during his abscondance he was involved in case registered with Police Station Mid Ranjha, District Sargodha vide F.I.R. No,34, dated 13-4-1993 and recently he has committed double murder and a case has been registered against him vide F.I.R. No,110, dated 23-3-1997, at Police Station Mid Ranjha District Sargodha. It is also alleged that the petitioner's family is receiving constant threats compelling them to compromise with him.

3. There is no cavil with proposition that it is the Constitutional duty of the Government functionaries to give protection to the life and liberty of the persons. Article 190 of the Constitution also makes it obligatory on all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan to act in aid of the Supreme Court. We, therefore, see no justification why no concrete steps have been taken by the police to effect the arrest of Rab Nawaz respondent despite orders passed by this Court. Even if the police felt that it needed some time to implement the decision, the proper course of action would have been to approach the appropriate Court in this behalf for extension of time in implementing the decision of this Court.

4. Be that as it may, we are unable to scribe to the pleas raised in paragraph 22 of the application moved before this Court that the petitioner has no other adequate and efficacious remedy available to him except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for the redress of his grievance and for the implementation of the order, dated 10-10-1995 (supra). Suffice it to say that a specific provision has been made under Article 187(2), of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for enforcement of any direction, order or decree passed by this Court by the concerned High Court. Thus, visualised, the petitioner may approach the High Court, if so advised, for speedy and effective implementation of this Court decision which, as stated above, is the Constitutional obligation of the Government upder Article 190. The petition is disposed of with these observations.