MUHAMMAD JAVED vs S.P., C.I.A., And Other
This habeas corpus petition was filed challenging the alleged illegal detention of Muhammad Aslam. The petitioner contended that the detention was unlawful because the police failed to record the arrest in the relevant police station or the Roznamcha (daily diary). The respondents submitted that the detenu was a suspect in case F.I.R. No. 102 of 2000 registered under Section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the recovery of a stolen motorcycle, and was also a proclaimed offender in another case, F.I.R. No. 286 of 1999 under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that while police irregularities, such as the failure to enter an arrest in the Roznamcha, may be subject to administrative review by higher authorities, such procedural lapses do not absolve the accused of criminal liability or invalidate the underlying criminal proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, allowing the police to take the detenu into custody in accordance with the law regarding the pending criminal cases.
- Does a failure by police to record an arrest in the Roznamcha absolve an accused of criminal guilt?
- Can procedural irregularities by police in the arrest process invalidate the underlying criminal case against a detenu?
- Are higher police authorities empowered to address irregularities in the arrest procedures of their subordinates?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
As per report submitted by the Bailiff, no record of arrest of the alleged detenu Muhammad Aslam was shown to him. Anyhow, today, the stance taken by the respondents is that he was required as an accused in case F. I. R. No. 102 of 2000 registered with Police Station Lohari Gate, Lahore, on 29-7- 2000 under section 381-A, P.P.C. According to them, subsequently, recovery of stolen motorcycle was effected from him on 13-10-2000. They detenu is also a proclaimed offender in another case F.I.R. No. 286 of 1999 under section 379, P.P.C., as such, he is required by, the police.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that ho report was made of his arrest in the relevant police station and no corresponding entry was incorporated in the Roznamcha, therefore, the case against the petitioner becomes doubtful.
3. Any irregularity on the part of the police may be taken into consideration by the higher authority but that does not absolve the alleged detenu of his guilt. He is to be proceeded against in accordance with law. As the detenu is required it; case F.I.R. No. 102 of 2000, he may be taken into custody by the police officials. Disposed of.