Find a Lawyer

Case No. 584/1084 of 1984. decided on 10th March, 1985.

‑Disciplinary action‑Police official ‑Prosecuting Inspector charged for misconduct‑ Investigating S.H.O. applying for remand of an accused for Police custody‑Prosecuting Inspector sending appli cation of S.H.O. to Magistrate and Magistrate granting same allowing four days remand of accused to Police custody‑Investigat ing S.H.O. same day sending another application for remand of accused to Judicial custody stating that accused no longer required in Police custody‑Prosecuting Inspector submitting second applica tion also to Magistrate and Magistrate granting same‑Accused subsequently complaining that S. H. O. had accepted bribe for sending second application‑Prosecuting Inspector (appellant) imposed penalty of censure on grounds that his conduct was also questionable as he did not inform S.D.P.O. about second application of S.H.O.‑Held :investigation being in hands of S.H.O. appellant in view of provisions of Ss. 167 and 344 of Criminal Procedure Code could not disagree with S.H.O. and acted in bona fide manner in submitting second application to Magistrate‑Service Tribunal reaching conclusion that appellant committed no violation of rules‑Impugned penalty, in circumstances, set aside‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S . 4.

Rashid‑ud‑Din Qureshi for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑Ali Abbas, Prosecuting Inspector Hqr. ,Office of Superintendent of Police, Okara, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order dated 25th June, 1983 of Superintendent Police Okara and order dated 6th June, 1984 of Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, with the prayer that both the impugned orders be set aside and the penalty of censure be quashed. He has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Okara and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, as respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13th October, 1982 S.I. Sakhawat Hussain Police Station Hujra applied for remand of accused in case FIR No. 194 under section 43/44 Petroleum Act for Police custody. The appel lant sent the same application in the Court of competent Magistrate who was pleased to allow four days remand of the accused to Police custody. On the same day just near the close of the Court hours the S.I. Sakhawat Hussain sent another application in the same case seeking remand of the accused to judicial custody. The appellant submitted the said remand application to the Court of Magistrate Ist Class, who granted judicial re mand as requested by the S.I. The accused in the said case submitted an application to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore in which he alleged that S. I. Sakhawat Hussain/ S.H.O. had accepted bribe of money of Rs. 7,000 for remanding him to judicial custody after getting first physical remand. The learned D.I.G. Police sent the application to Superintendent of Police, Okara for enquiry and held the S.‑I. Sakhawat Hussain guilty but recommended departmental regular action against him for final determination of the guilt. The D.S.P. in concluding line of the enquiry report remarked that the conduct of the appellant was also questionable because he did not inform him about the second request of the said S.I. Sakhawat Hussain. The appellant was served with a show‑cause notice dated 29th January, 1983 to which he sub mitted his reply. The plea of the appellant was that all that was done in good faith but the respondents did not accept the contention of the appellant and awarded him the penalty of censure. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the action of the appellant was in conformity with the provisions of section 167 and also section 344, Cr. P. C., therefore, no exception could be taken to the same. It was further argued that it was the discretion of the Investigating Officer to get physical judicial remand of the accused keeping in view the progress of investigation. It has been vehemently argued that for the respective physical and judicial remand, the appellant had no other alternative but to forward the same to the Magistrate. While explaining the background of this case learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that S. I. Sakhawat Hussain had mentioned in the remand order that source of supply of adulterated mobile oil had been disclosed by the accused and as such the accused was not required by the local Police and 'on this ground the appellant forwarded the remand papers to the Court in good faith.

5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the first application was followed by the second application within a span of four hours, therefore, it was incumbent upon the appellant that he should have brought this misconduct to the notice of S. D. P. O. He has laid lot of stress that there was no law/practice on the subject which justify the judicial remand after a few hours of physical remand. He has criticised the vigilance of the appellant in this respect.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that according to the law laid down the appellant was under obligation to forward the request of the S. I. Sakhawat Hussain to the Magistrate in both the cases. It is a matter well established under the rules as well as section 344 of Cr. P. C. that physical remand is always secured when there is recovery to be made of certain articles incriminating in nature from the accused. If, during the course of investigation the S. H. O. feels that any such thing was in the field, he will be within his competency to move to the Magistrate to allow judicial remand of the appellant as his custody will no longer be needed by the Police. According to the record of this case the first application was made for securing physical remand on the ground that Mobil Oil had to be recovered but later on same S. H. O. Sakhawat Hussain put in second application by submitting that as Mobil Oil had been recovered, therefore, there was no need of physical custody of the accused with the Police. The investigation being in the hand of S. H. O. Sakhawat Hussain, the appellant was no body to disagree with him as he had no data against the same. We as a matter of abdundant caution summoned the appellant in the court and asked him to explain his conduct in this matter and the appellant reiterated what was observed above and was able to satisfy us that he had acted in a bona fide manner, therefore, the penalty of censure so imposed upon‑him was unjustified.

7. We have carefully examined order of respondent No. 2 and find that he had pointed out no violation of Rules/Law or prescribed procedure but has simply stated that the plea taken by the appellant has no weight and failed to bring the matter to the notice of S. D. P. O,, we are of the considered opinion that such like observations are hardly justified when there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had committed any breach of rules and has not acted in the prescribed manner.

8. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders being without any justification. There will be no order as to costs.

A.E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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