Find a Lawyer

Review Application No. 69 of 1976 in Writ Petition No. 511 of 1976, decided on 4th November, 1978.

-------S. 154--Review petition-Recording of second F. I. R.-Review petition against order of High Court conceding prayer of respondent for recording second F. I. R. relating to same occurrence filed with prayer that order be reviewed to be recalled and writ petition filed against petitioner dismissed--Section 154, however, contemplating only one F. I. R. and only one such report could go into evidence in a case Order recalled, in circumstances-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.-[First Information Report-Review].

Lakhmir v. The State P L D 1968 Quetta 7; Ramzan v. State P L D 1967 Lah. 588 and Mansur Ali v. State 1970 P Cr. L J 287 ref.

-- Ss. 154 & 161-Distinction-Section 154 contemplates lodging of report of cognizable offence for which a Police Officer after investigation finds correctness of occurrence and action so taken-Statements and material recorded after F. I. R. received fall in realm of investigation and all statements recorded thereafter come under S. 161, Cr. P. C.

--- Rule 24.1 read with rule 24.3-.F. I. R. recording of---Rule 24.1 deals with recording in writing of First Information relating to an offence whether cognizable or non-cognizable--Rules 24.1 & 24.3, distinction-In former, information disclosing commission of cognizable offence recorded in F. I. R. register as well gas in Station Diary whereas in later, information regarding non-cognizable offence recorded in Station Diary only.

----Ss. 156 & 161 read with Punjab Police Rules, 1934, r. 21.1(4) Purpose of recording F. I. R.-Primary purpose of F. I. R. is to inform about commission of cognizable offence to be investigated by a Police Officer under S. 156 -Police Officer may then find out source of information, names of offenders and witnesses and whether informant himself an eye-witness as per r. 21.1(4)-Information regarding occurrence coming out later in point of time to be taken down as statements before police under S. 161, Cr. P. C.-[Statement b.-fore police-First Information Report].

S. M. Zubair for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of bearing: 4th November, 1978.

One Haji Jewan was murdered on 7th of February, 1976, in respect of which occurrence, a First Information Report was lodged by one Issa, his elder brother, on 8th of February, 1976 at Serial No. 23 of P. S. Saddar, Dera Ghazi Khan. He named Ghulam Muhammad as the sole assailant.

2. Ghulam Muhammad the above-named assailant was also murdered the same day and consequently another F. I. R. No. 24 was lodged at the same Police Station. The present applicant and 4 of others were accused of that offence. Ghulam Siddiq respondent No. 2 who is son of Haji Jewan deceased, filed Writ Petition No. 511 of 1976 against the S. H. O. and the petitioner. He implicated some of the respondents in the writ petition as the assailants and prayed that another F. I. R. be ordered to be recorded.

3. The case came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 14th of May, 1976 when it was conceded on behalf of the State that a report of Ghulam Siddiq shall also be registered. That petition was disposed of accordingly.

4. Feeling aggrieved of that order the present petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal and prayed that the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, however, directed the petitioner to approach the High Court for review of the order so that the same could be rectified. The relevant observations are as under:---

"It appears to us that once the case was registered vide F. I. R. 23 dated 7-2-76 in respect of the murder of Haji Jewan the registration of a fresh report notwithstanding the divergent version contained therein was not called for inasmuch as the ball had already been set rolling and the police was not only competent but also duty bound to unearth the true facts and trace the real culprits. The impugned order seems to .be the result of some confusion or accidental slip. Indeed learned counsel pointed out that on the same day on similar facts the learned Chief Justice had declined to issue any direction to the police for the registration of afresh case regarding the same transaction though a counter-version was alleged in that case also. In these cir cumstances we consider the better course would be to approach the High Court for a review of the order, and there is no reason why the High Court should not rectify the situation."

5. The petitioner then filed the present review petition and prayed that the order dated 14th of May, 1976 be reviewed to be recalled and the writ petition be dismissed with costs. It is contended by the learned counsel that the provision of section 154, Cr. P. C. under which the F. I. R. is registered does not conceive of a second information being recorded with regard to the same occurrence. He also referred to Lakhmir v. The State (P L D 1968 Quetta 7), wherein a second statement of the informant recorded by the Tehsildar during investigation was ignored and the First Information Report recorded by the police was taken to be the F. I. R; A Division Bench of this Court in Ramzan v. State (P L D 1957 Lah. 588) also took the same view that a statement recorded after commencement of investigation is not the First Information Report. A learned Single Judge of the Dacca High Court took the same view in Mansur Ali v. State (1970 P Cr. L J287) that section 154, Cr. P. C. contemplates only one First Information Report and only one such report can go into evidence in case.

6. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest this petition: We, however, considered the plea being raised and have come to the conclusion that the previous order merits being recalled.

7. Section 154, Cr. P. C. reads as under:----

"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer incharge of police-station, shall be reduced to writing by him, or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept) by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf:"

It is quite clear from the wording of this section that the report being lodge' before the police is with regard to the commission of a cognizable offence. It is on that basis that Police Officer is entitled to investigate the matter, in order to find out the facts of the case. The investigation necessarily involves, finding out, if the reported occurrence is correct Was it committed the was it has been reported Were the accused named in the F.I.R. responsible for the Occurrence What evidence or other material is available to supported finding So all actions taken, statements recorded and material collected, after the first information was received fall in the real of investigation, therefore, all statements recorded, thereafter, shall come under section 161, Cr. P. C. a not section 154. Cr. P. C.

8. Rule 24.1 of the Police Rules, deals with the recording of the first information relating to an Offence, whether cognizable or non-cognizable. It is provided therein that every such information shall be recorded, in-writing, by the officer incharge of a police station. The Police Officer thus, is obliged to record in Writing, every information relating to the commission of any Offence. The only distinction made here is that the information disclosed commission of a cognizable offence s to be recorded in the First Information Report Register as well as station diary under rule 24.1(2) while the informs iron with regard to non-cognizable offence is to be recorded in the station diary only under rule 24.3. Further, the Police Officer at that time is not necessarily concerned with the correctness of the information, though he can refuse to record information in the F. I. R. Register if he reason ably suspects its correctness. He may in that case record the information in the station register.

9. It is a common ground in both sets of information s that Haji Jewan was murdered. The question whether Ghulam Muhammad had committed the offence or some one else had, however, to be resolved during investigation. The second information, therefore, pertained to the investiga tion part and could in no case fall to be recorded under section 154, Cr. P. C. Further, an information by some one else is not a prerequisite to recording the F. I. R. Under rule 24.1(2) a Police Officer can record the F. I. R. even on his own suspicion of commission of an offence. He. therefore, will not be required to record F. I. R. at the instance of a complainant subsequently in respect of the same occurrence. It may be relevant to reproduce in full rule 24.1(2) to elucidate point in issue

"With the exception of cases mentioned in rule 24.10 below, in every case in which the officer in charge of a police station, from information or otherwise, has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156, Criminal Procedure Code, 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.11."

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 reason 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 from the above that the primary purpose of the F. I. R. is to inform about the commission of a cognizable offence which a Police Officer is empowered to investigate under section 156, Cr. P. C. The Police Officer 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). All 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 teen considered as a statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. only. The order to register a second F. I. R. in that situation, vas not justified in law, even if there was a concession made on the part of the State.

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.

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

Review application accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.