GHULAM SIDDIQUE vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SADDAR, DERA GHAZI KHAN

1. GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-One Haji Jewan was murdered on 7th of February, 1976, in respect of which occurrence, a First Information Report to investigate, he shall enter in full such information or other intelligence as soon as practicable in the First Information Report Register, shall have each copy signed, marked or sealed by the informant if present, shall seal each with the station seal, and shall dispose of the copies in accordance with rule 24.5, and if he abstains from investigation under either of the provisions to section 157 of the Code, he shall submit the copy intended for the Magistrate through the Superintendent. At the same time a reference to such report shall be entered in the Station Diary, register No. II"

2. Further it is also not necessary that every information prima facie disclosing a cognizable offence be recorded. In case of a suspicion about its correctness a Police Officer may enter the substance of the information or intelligence in a station diary and shall also record his reasons for suspecting that alleged offence has not been committed. Reference be made to rule 24.4. However, a copy of such a report is to be sent to the Inspector Police and other superior Police Officer and the District Magistrate for their perusal and orders.

10. It is quite obvious that the primary purpose of the F. I. R. Is t inform about the commission of a cognizable offence, which a Police Office is empowered to investigate under section 156, Cr. P. C.

3. The Police Office receiving that information may question the informant to find out his source of information about the names of the offenders and the witnesses and whether the informant himself was an eye-witness as laid down in rule 21.1(4). Al other informations with regard to that occurrence coming out later in point of time have to be taken down as statements of those persons before the police under section 161, Cr. P. C. The version given by Ghulam Siddiq, therefore, should have been considered as a statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. Only. The order to register a second F. I. R. In that situation, was not justified in law, even if there was a concession made on the part of the State.

4. For the reasons given above, we accept this review application, recall the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14th of May, 1976 and dismiss the Writ Petition No. 511 of 1976.

5. As no one appeared to defend this case, there will be no order as to costs.